New blog!

This blog will not have new updates, for more updates, posts by the same author and more diverse topics click HERE to go to the new PinkAiz blog

Republican Marathon

With poll numbers and public opinion changing on a daily basis, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum strike like gladiators on a battlefield of debates and primaries. It is hard to keep up with what’s going on, especially when the candidates seem more concerned with exposing their rivals’ weaknesses than discussing the real issues and objectives of their campaigns.

The debates may look like a fun fair to the untrained eye. So many of the pursuers for the nomination make elaborate and vague sentences designed to confuse the listener.

First of all, these are the Republican candidates. All of their views are encompassed on the conservative spectrum of politics; one can find that the candidates agree in a lot of the issues. They differ, however, on the methods and procedures the government should take to get there.

Mitt Romney, a man who, as reported by CNN, has spent almost as much of his own money as his rivals combined, tries connecting with people by saying that his wealth should be an inspiration of hard work. However, his personal wealth is one of the largest barriers between him and middle class voters.  Pretending to be an average Joe, he intends to get the Republican nomination by appealing to the undecided. Romney swings with the tide, changing his stance every time it benefits him, adapting to the situation, this way he hopes to get a better scope of voters. Truth is, this makes him look more like a flip-flopper than a skillful contender.

Rick Santorum, in Jon Stewart’s words, is “The man Romney is pretending to be.” Santorum is a hardcore conservative, settled at the far right of the political spectrum. He promotes all the values that extreme social conservatives hold dear and sacred, though his openness about social issues is not very well received by more moderate Republicans.

By remaining strong on his values he intended to capture more Republican voters and “outnumber” Romney. He was the strong-minded one, but when polls and debates started looking bad he stepped back and ceased expressing his opinions as strongly, thus letting go of the thing that set him apart.

Newt Gingrich is philosophically positioned between Romney and Santorum, as far as ideals go. He’s hoping that by remaining moderate on his opinions, he’ll manage to win the vote of the moderate and a fair share of the more liberal and more conservative voters. His campaign suffered for his personal choices and his popularity went down after the December 2011 scandal regarding his marriage. The fact is, he comes across weak, not only on the political field, but also on his personal battles.

The only exception may be Ron Paul, whose policy of shutting down the Department of Education makes him radical. He seems to be neither here nor there and he disagrees with the other candidates almost on everything. Although he stands separately as the only different candidate, he has not made a good impression during the debates, succeeding only in enabling Romney. He’s the candidate that hopes to get everyone else’s vote.

According to the Website Real Clear Politics, –which picks up polls from different websites to compare them– of all the candidates, the one that polls higher against Barack Obama is Romney. Following the Michigan primary, everything looks like he will be the Republican presidential candidate.  Santorum, who had stayed under the radar, is coming in strongly and might make a big difference on the upcoming primaries if he manages to escape his fellow runners’ attacks on the debates.

Some speculate that this question of the republican candidate choice is all going to be hashed out on the Republican Convention that is to be held in Tampa Bay, Florida in August. A name that hovers on the political skyline like a stray feather floating in the wind is Sarah Plain’s. With no clear statement to declare whether she’ll respond to this draft call to be the strong and powerful candidate only she believes she can be. The question remains, if this maverick will be the hope for the Republicans who’re not convinced by the other candidates, or if she’ll stay in Alaska keeping an eye on Russia for us.

(Article written for The Habit -Dominican University of California student paper-)
-C.R.A.

Why did they win?

The awards season is here.

Industry watchers and critics get ready to reward the best of the best in cinema. The two most prestigious, and popular award shows are the Golden Globes and the Academy Awards. I love to watch the ceremonies, for me it’s really interesting to observe the different nominations and the winners. 

I’ve watched maybe the last ten ceremonies and have noticed that sometimes the winners seem to get the award because they make a political or social statement and not precisely on account of the craftsmanship of the film. 

Is it fair that a movie should get the award just because it makes a statement? Of course this is not always the case, but if the Academy and the Foreign Press like making statements so much, why don’t they offer an award for the movie with the most relevant social message? 

My favorite example is the case of Avatar and The Hurt Locker. Avatar won the Golden Globe for Best Picture, but Hurt Locker won the Academy Award for the same category. Locker was a fine movie but it was (disputably) not the best one nominated that year. Avatar was not only a great movie, is a movie that changed modern moviemaking. 

So why did Hurt Locker win? I’m sure it wasn’t just so James Cameron’s ex-wife could rub the Oscar in his face. Is it possible then that the movie won to make a point? The award went to a film whose only relevant aspect is that it offers a popular, progressive and liberal position on the way war is viewed by society. 

Another example is Slumdog Millionaire which tried it’s best to making the statement of saying that middle-eastern people “are people too”, or last year’s Golden Globe winner The Kids Are All Right, which makes a point in favor of families with gay parents (at a time where bullying against homosexuals was raging). 

Don’t think for a second that I believe any of those causes to be wrong, but I just don’t think is fair for a movie to win solely because it fits a political agenda. 

So, this year, when you make your Oscar predictions, read a little bit between the lines, If we’re lucky we will get a great show and a worthy winner, a winner that offers an example of the true art that is making a film. 

-C.R.A.

Are 3D movies worth the price?

Moviegoers in 2010 were seven times more likely to pay for a film in 3D, but this year a new MORI suggest they are just as likely to go to a 2D screening. This may be attributed to the fact that going to a 3D screening is usually more expensive than a regular one (25% to 30% more according to Fandango), another possible cause is that watching 3D films can produce “3D fatigue”, and a third cause may be that 3D movies have simply lost their novelty.

3D fatigue can cause headache or even migraine; professor Martin Banks of U.C. Berkeley (who coined the term) says that the eyestrain can also produce blurry vision and a tired feeling. This strain is caused because 3D technology tricks the brain to create a 3 dimensional appearance according to the Institute of Physics website.

There are two ways of making a 3D film. The first one is recording footage with a 3D camera, which has two lenses close together to create an “eye like” vision of things. This method is the most realistic 3D effect, also called native 3D. It is the one seen in Academy award winner, James Cameron’s Avatar for example. The other method, called fake 3D by some movie aficionados, consists in filming things with regular cameras and then making a 3D conversion with computer software. Though the headaches, eyestrain and blurry vision can be caused by any 3D movie, the risks of suffering from 3D fatigue increase with movies that are digitally converted to 3D.

A study made at California State University, Dominguez Hills, with a control group of 400 students, showed that the 3D experience does not enhance emotions towards the situation on the screen nor does it make the viewer remember the movie better. Studies like this one make us think if there’s any real benefit to watching 3D movies, or if it’s just a way for movie companies to make more money. All the efforts of making 3D TV into something “hip” seems to be a lost cause. Not only do 3D TVs’ produce the kind of forced 3D that causes 3D fatigue, they also have a limited field of proper view. This means that in order to have a nice 3D experience in your home you need to be at a specific viewing distance, with the screen at the proper level for your eyes, and forget about watching the 3D pop out in the right way if you’re on the periphery or located to the side of the screen.

The 3D experience can be enjoyable to those who don’t suffer 3D fatigue, I don’t fully agree with the results of the study made at CSU, mainly because the movies they used as a guide -How to Train Your Dragon, Alice in Wonderland and Clash of The Titans- are not the best 3D examples. Let me state why: Animated 3D films usually have an unpleasant “I’m going to touch your nose” sort of 3D effect, which is made to attract children. Alice has no special elements to make it a noteworthy 3D experience. Finally, Clash of The Titans has one of the worst fake 3D’s ever seen on the silver screen.

When done properly 3D can be a thrilling experience, such as James Cameron’s Avatar and Walt Disney’s Tron: Legacy. Well-done 3D movies do not feel the same if watched on 3D and 2D. That kind of films define the concept of involving 3D sensation. The 3D stops being just an effect and becomes part of the narrative; it helps you get into the dramatic situation presented on screen. If used only in measured doses, enough of it so you’ll notice the effect, but not too much so you’ll feel every unnecessary movement as an attempt to hit you in the face.

Many movies use fake 3D these days –Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2, Clash of The Titans, Thor, Capt. America, The Green Hornet, The Smurfs, Spy Kids 4, Alice in Wonderland- and the list goes on and on. Apparently studios are more concerned about releasing movies in 3D and selling $15 tickets than they are in making good quality 3D films. Although it’s true that of the upcoming 2012 movies most of them are being shot in native 3D. It may be that someone up there has realized that the 3D fad will go down if they can’t offer a 3D effect worth the price. If 3D does not improve, I for one will be sticking with the regular priced 2D films; which by the way don’t give me a headache.

Carolina Rosado
(Article written for The Habit -Dominican University of California student paper-)