Jobs - What's Missing?

The movie Jobs is a very disappointing movie. It is the modern day interpretation of an American Icon that lacks any historical context of his legacy.

Some watching the movie will debate the focus was on Steve Job as an innovator, which I agree he had an impact on our country's technological innovations. His flaws as a person were transparent in the movie. He was at times arrogant and disconnected with some of his personal relationships. The performance by Ashton Kutcher was a great impression of how Steve Jobs may have been at the early days of Apple.

The movie did however hint that Steve Jobs cared about the innovators more than the process of capitalizing on innovations. He cared less about profits, more about a vision. The movie does a great job of creating an image of a driven personality that will go to great lengths to think outside of the box. He loathes the profitable nature that places restraints on his creativity.

I loved this part of the movie. It would explain his actions later on in life that I struggle with. For Steve Jobs was a complicated person. A funny thing happened regarding the latter part of Steve Job's story. Typical in Hollywood movies, the savior would come to Apple and save the day. He would bring the company back to their roots of innovation. They ended the story with "Welcome back Steve." This is how they ended the movie. Kind of like the closing episode of the Sopranos, the screen goes black at a time when I was just getting interested. I wanted to know why this guy made some pretty controversial decisions when he came back to Apple. Unfortunately, the story stops when his life could have been critically viewed as complicated on a much larger level.

Here is what the movie gives a pass on regarding the history of Apple. Steve Jobs would take Apple down a path that is Anti-Apple after the screen went black. The film ends with hints of the Ipod shuffle and  and cell phones being the next stage of development. This is why Apple made a comeback.  Instead the film never delves into the most creative part of Steve Job's career. Why is that?

This part of the Steve Job timeline is complicated. He would seek out Globalization and take his innovations overseas. A fascinating part of Steve Job's career was left out. The innovations that would follow happened due to his obsession of getting an innovative product out quickly, which the film does touch upon. The problem is that this could only happen with slave labor. Apple went deep in the bowels of China, and opened some of the most brutal work camps. Unimaginable to our standards of living.

We as consumers that give the legacy of Jobs a pass, especially when a movie like this glosses over the negative part of Apples ability to be innovative. They use and exploitation of labor in remote regions of the world to meet the appetite of our consumer driven economy were conveniently left out. While Microsoft and Google has similar business practices, they also are not the focus of this film.

The problem with a film like Jobs is that it is void of historical analysis. The purpose of this film was to create a modern day Henry Ford. The film is void of criticism that would hurt his legacy. The film's primary purpose was to create an illusion in our minds of the legacy of Steve Jobs be positive when we left the movie theater. I truly believe the complete history of Apple would have not hurt Steve Job's legacy. It would have just struck a balance in our minds that how we achieve success is as important as innovation. For this reason, the movie was a huge disappointment.

Reel Injun

As a kid, I loved watching movies about Injuns. John Wayne films were a huge part of my life. When I wasn't watching westerns, I would crack up over cartoon portrayals of Indians such as Bugs Bunny. Essentially, what I saw was what I believed to be accurate accounts of Native American history. I use to sing one little two little three little Indians, never realizing it was a head count for killing them in battle. Essentially, I was manipulated to find humor and enjoyment of genocide without realizing it.

The Hollywood Interpretations of Native American culture were made for a reason. To validate we are the Americans, not them. This documentary is a great example how easily our thoughts and ideas of culture are not authentic. This documentary gives insight into our history. Basically, the spoils of winning a war is reshaping history. I saw the Searchers many times. Never did I watch this movie with the filter that John Wayne just shot the eyes out of a Native American. Nor was I surprised this was allowed to be filmed during a highly censored time in Hollywood. The allowance was give by the censors so I could think, "they were savages, this is normal."

As I watched this documentary, I could not help but ponder, "what would be the film interpretations of failed attempts at genocide if they succeeded. Would Germany have used films to portrays Jews as savages post WWII? Would there be funny cartoons with stereotypes of Jewish culture? (even worse than what is out there today) What would be the interpretations on film of other global conflicts? It is very disturbing how film and media can shape our beliefs of other cultures. Our lack of exposure to diversity allows Hollywood to shape the identities of cultural groups we do not know or understand.

Another sad aspect of the film was learning the  accuracy of one of my favorite icons of Native American caricatures: Iron Eyes Cody. Who was Iron Eyes Cody? He was the Native American that was portrayed in the anti-pollution commercials during the 1970's. This part of the documentary demonstrates the complexity of "what is real" and "what is not."

During the film, a change of events that helped us reevaluate Hollywood's portrayal of Native Americans was Marlon Brando's refusal to accept an Oscar back in the 1970s. The explanation behind this event is very telling of Marlon Brando's persona that I never understood until watching this film. There are many historical references throughout this film that will challenge most non-natives in our country to rethink what we were taught in school, and at home about Native American history. Without a doubt, a great documentary.

* Note: Reel Injun is on Netflix and you can find clips on Youtube to use in a classroom.
** If you think the singer Neil Diamond directed the film, Houston we have a problem.

The Munsters - Lessons In Race Relations

Growing up, I loved the Munsters. A simple television show that was comically based on the Universal Monsters of the 1930s and 40s.  Curiously, as many shows in the 60s, the Munsters blended social commentary cleverly into the show without many realizing it at the time.

The producers of the show decided to have the Munsters be a family similar to the Beavers and many typical sitcom families of this era. However the show had a subtle difference. The neighbors and community  marginalized the Munsters because they "looked" different. Somehow, the Munsters would never realize the intolerance towards them in the show. However the viewers were subjected to the insecurities of people meeting the Munsters for the first time.

Every week, the Munsters provided examples for children that being different was ok. The show reflected the time period it was created. In the 1960's, neighborhoods were becoming integrated, and people were sharply mistrustful of the "new" family on the block if they were different. Schools were being integrated along with neighborhoods. The United States was going through a transition that was both difficult and violent.

I included a documentary of the film with this review. It provides insight into the show and how groundbreaking it was back in the 60s. As a child, little did I know the show was such a treasure.

Addicted to Plastic

Earlier this year, I went to the coast of Maine with my children. Typical of beachcombers, we went hunting for shells. Part of our search was smell shiny pellets which I thought were shells. We would shift through the water and sand to find these oddly shaped particles. Oddly enough, I did not give them a second thought until I saw the documentary I am writing about today.

Addicted to Plastics is a very detail oriented documentary regarding the impact of plastics on our global and local economy. Extremely detailed and possibly, a warning that we need to examine our use of plastics. Plastics today, may have reached levels that lead reached in our environment during the late 60s and early 70s.

To understand the significance of the is documentary, I had the benefit of watching the episode of Cosmos that explained the significance of lead in our environment. We were literally damaging our existence with high lead levels to the point that it could have been potentially irreversible. Lead had the ability to possibly mutate our genes and change the cognitive abilities of humans if it was left unchecked.

While watching this documentary, I could not help be find comparisons to the lead problems of our past. One could conclude that a failure to honestly reflect the dangers of plastics in our ecosystem, human DNA and abilities could be permanently damaged. It is a huge problem that is not garnering the attention it deserves.

What made the documentary meaningful to me was the examination of our oceans. The vastness of our oceans, it would be hard to imagine that we could saturate our oceans in such a short period of time. Plastic pollution has saturated our oceans with waste to the point that it is not debatable. It is in our food chain, and we are consuming plastic waste.

Another part of the documentary is the social-economic impact of recycling plastics in many world economies. The impact of plastic is diverse and different on many world economies. Some of the best solutions to plastics are coming from remote parts of the world that had to ban or greatly reduce plastics our of necessity.

The solution is not going to be reducing our dependence on plastic. It most likely is not going to change unless we come up with another safer alternative. The solution from this documentary that seems to be most prominent is recycling. What is mind blowing is that dormant capsulated landfills may one day be turned into profitable resources. It would seem that capitalism is finding a was to make recycling profitable. The delicate balance of social responsibility and capitalism seem to be the solution to the problem.  Overall, the production value of this film can be disjointed. However the content makes up for the production values that are lacking at times. Overall, a great documentary that could change our habits regarding our addiction to plastics

The Wolf of Wall Street - Understanding Scorsese's Anthropological Skills

I finally sat down and watched the Wolf of Wall Street. Before I write my review, I should disclose I am a huge fan of Martin Scorsese. The bar is set very high when it comes to viewing a Scorsese film. Since the early days of Mean Streets, to his popular films of today, Martin Scorsese offers films that entertain and provide. More importantly, for future generations, his films provide anthropological evidence of the time periods set as the background for us to explore. His attention to detail of the characters and themes are simply spot on.

Scorsese always places a value on history. For example, Mean Streets is an important period piece. Watching this movie, you can understand what NYC was like in the 70's. Parts of NYC were virtually uninhabitable. Yet, people learned how to survive and adapt to a very hostile living environment. When we fast forward to today, and ask tough questions about the Police, Law Enforcement, and Judicial inequities, one can watch Mean Streets and understand a different time in NYC when justice had different inequities that led to a greater amount of violence than their is today. How do we as a society measure those gains? Learning from the past could help temper the debates and protests by provided a historical balance to the discussion.

This is why I love many of Scorsese's films. He spends a lot of time on getting the historical aspect of his films to be accurate portrayals by the actors. His use of sex, drugs, and violence in film is to provide an insight into a character's moral sense of being. Joe Pesci and Robert DeNiro gave some amazing performances in some of Scorcese's earlier movies. Their characters were period pieces.

The Wolf of Wall Street is a very good attempt at a character analysis of greed. Leonardo DiCaprio is the new gatekeeper of Scorsese's recent attempts at film. Sometimes, I am skeptical of the casting of DiCaprio by Scorsese. However, he is today's DeNiro and Pesci. The portrayal of Jordan Belfort is simply spot on. Some may watch the movie and think that Scorsese over dramatized the sex and drugs. However, if you know the real story of Belfort's antics on Wall Street, you would think again.

The movie is again, one of Scorsese's analysis of a time period in the United States that is not very flattering. An expose of how the system is ripe with fraud and abuse when it came to securities and stock trades. Quite simply, one should watch the movie with a critical lens that this is a story that repeats itself daily in our country. The disparities of rich and poor come at an expense. People are taken advantage of every day in the United States. Wall Street is leveraging the middle class. When prices are low or high, it is not always about supply and demand as we are taught in school.

I could not help to reflect upon our recent drop on Oil and Gas prices. There will be winners and losers. A temporary gain for the average citizen for a few hundred dollars. Then, oil will become a commodity that is used against us. One percent of the population will benefit from the rise in prices. They will make millions. The Wolf of Wall Street is a reflection upon a very greedy system of buy and sell that exists in our global economy. In a perfect world, his films would also inform and educate his audiences to question reality. Unfortunately, his use of violence, sex, and drugs seems to be the center of discussion. Take the time to view his movies, and analyze with a critical lens what Scorsese is trying to capture on film. For each film, is a period piece into American History for future generations to watch and explore with great debate.

"30 for 30" Muhammad and Larry

I just love ESPY film documentaries. I am hoping to review some for teachers, parents, and educators in the future that provide an excellent insight into history. My first film is Muhammad and Larry. This is a documentary of the 1980 fight between Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes. Like so many of the Ali fights, Larry Holmes is demonized because of the popularity of Muhammad Ali. The movie provides a backdrop similar to documentaries on Joe Frazier and Sonny Liston. Ali was given a pass for his cruelty by the media. If you ever get a chance, there are some earlier documentaries that explain Ali's past abuse of opponents. Muhammad would cleverly, use race and other deficits to psychologically destroy an opponent.

What makes this documentary fascinating is you have to know the history of Ali to appreciate what is a critical theme of this documentary. This movie is about corporate greed. Greed so immense, that the cost of a legendary icon's life is inconsequential to money. Mohammad Ali is clearly unfit to fight. Medically he is ineligible based on Medical Tests. What is incredible is that the movie producers are documenting the brain's decline from previous fights. Literally, Ali's speech is slurred and his physical abilities are declining. All while his friends and family watch the decline without objection. It is just shocking to me that his past Doctor from when he was younger was the only person on record to tell Ali, you are risking death to continue boxing.

Another backdrop is Larry Holmes. He was Ali's former sparring partner. He knows Ali has declined and there is something wrong with the fighter he once sparred. He wants the fight to end and the brutal beating he gives Ali is due to the referee's unwillingness to stop the fight. How it ends is pitiful. A few years later, Ali would be documented with Parkinson's Disease. Fight induced? One has to wonder if the greed of fight promoters limited Muhammad Ali for the coming decades. All in all, a great documentary.

Carl Panzram - The Spirit of Hatred and Vengeance

Carl Panzram - The Spirit of Hatred and Vengeance is a documentary that came out in 2012 about a serial killer. There are great moments to this documentary. That's why I am recommending it for viewing. However, the critical lens needed for watching the documentary is to include additional filters for your viewing, while taking some production values and casting them aside.

Here is what I mean: The film is distracted by the "boogey man" voice associated with Carl Panzram. It is too theatrical. Next, the film provides "evil" film sequences to accompany the autobiography. It would have been much better if the producers withheld from distractions such as the additional footage they included. It would have been better served to allow the viewer to provide visual imagery through narration within their own minds. The goal of this film is to ultimately explain "good v. evil." Instead, I enjoyed the potential to explain how evil is created by systems within our society. The movie can not balance nature v. nurture very well in explaining Panzer's actions.

It is apparent to me that the producer wanted us to lack empathy for Panzer. Scenes of abuse which was so lengthy was attributed to "evil." Even when historical analysis is given that is of substance, the "Panzer Evil Voice" helps to distract some of the counterpoints.

The value of the movie is the insight from a serial killer in his own words what constructed his violence. This movie could have been a greater indictment of Judeo-Christian values and how they impacted the criminal justice systems over a hundred years ago. The environment that Panzer grew up with was ironically just as cruel as his murders. There was sort of disconnect to this theme at times.

What we can learn from this movie from a modern perspective is that systems in the safety net left unmonitored can come back to haunt us as a society. The "Serial Killer" is an American cultural icon. Other developed countries have less serial killers. Why is that? Carl Panzer tried to give us insight into why that is by opening up and sharing his story. Most Serial Killers are silent about their past. For this reason, I recommend this movie, with filters of decency come from the viewing of this film.

Authors Notes: Panzer served sentences in Oregon and Upstate New York. Both communities have a dark past regarding prison abuse. As I watched, I wondered how many people in both states know the history of their prison systems.