Everyone knows that the 90’s were a time of many fashion tragedies and triumphs, but few take the time to appreciate the way it showed up in anime. I’ve recently been re-watching Sailor Moon, a show about a group of magical middle schoolers fighting monsters, in an effort to get back in touch with some of the childlike wonder I used to feel when I watched it on VHS as a mere babe. That hasn’t really happened, but I have found myself screaming at some of the #looks the Scouts are pulling off. With your permission, (the Sailor Scouts are all about consent!) I’d love to take you on a stroll through the magic and horrors of 90’s anime fashion.

Subscribe now

1. Mamoru Chiba (aka Tuxedo Mask)

We all love a man who puts some effort into his appearance, but Mamoru routinely looks like he got into a fight with the sleeves of his shirts and lost. I spent a good ten minutes trying to parse what was even going on with the outfit on the left. First of all, the high waisted sweatpants are a statement that, quite frankly, I don’t know if I’m prepared to hear.

Second of all, it should be understood that he has layered three distinct shirts on top of each other, the hood and sleeves of which seem to be consuming themselves, ouroboros-like, maybe to get away from the tank top they are paired with. And then, to top it all off, he’s added a single wristband, almost as an afterthought. You may be a prince, but you’re no style icon, Mamoru.

Admittedly the outfit on the right is actually iconic, if it weren’t for the WEIRD SLEEVES, AGAIN.

2. Minako Aino (aka Sailor Venus)

It feels unfair to rank Minako here after the tragedy that was Mamoru, but the amount of bows she wears keeps her at the bottom of the rung. Also, it’s hard to tell because the image is slightly cut off, but those pants are both poofy AND short-shorts AND plaid. PICK ONE.

3. Makoto Kino (aka Sailor Jupiter)

Again, Makota doesn’t deserve to be here. (Curse of the M name, perhaps?) But the salmon skirt with the split pea green turtleneck is questionable. And her outfits just don’t have the same pizzaz as the style icons below. She is rocking that high waist though, as was the way of the 90’s.

4. Michiru Kaiou (aka Sailor Neptune)

Michiru has a subtle but important style. That wrap top is something I would easily wear, and you can’t get more trendy than a light pink peacoat! Also, she needs to rank near Haruka because I’m no fool. Their styles work in correlation with one another; a perfect butch/femme dichotomy. Like the moon and the sea are in constant conversation, so are their looks… romantique.

5. Haruka Tenou (aka Sailor Uranus)

Haruka is constantly serving soft-butch realness, and like any true 90’s lesbian, this is often done through denim on denim. Iconic! While that purple button up is truly regrettable, there’s actually nothing more fashionable than casually matching with your girlfriend. Nothing.

6. Ami Mizuno (aka Sailor Mercury)

You may be wondering why Ami is so high on this list. To which I must tell you that her reserved but feminine fashion is TIMELESS. I could see these shirts in a Forever 21. The brooch might be a little strange for someone who’s supposed to be 14, but the facts speak for themselves: she is ALWAYS color coordinated.

7. Usagi Tsukino (aka Sailor Moon)

As the leader of the Sailor Scouts, it’s no wonder that Usagi is near the top of this list. She’s often rocking the high waisted shorts and button up look, but keeps it soft and pastel. Need I say more? This is PEAK 90’s fashion. God bless the quarter-length sleeve.

8. Rei Hino (aka Sailor Mars)

If you’re surprised to find Rei at the top of this list, you shouldn’t be. Just look at those hot pink overalls and tell me they aren’t the best thing you’ve ever seen. This outfit gives you something to chew on. The cuffed pants, the teal socks, the white saddle shoes that oh so casually match the shirt underneath, all leave you wanting more. Who even has the guts to wear white shoes? Don’t they know they’ll get dirty from the street and/or fighting crime? STYLE ICON REI HINO, THAT’S WHO.

What more can be said about John Peel that hasn’t already been discussed?

Before his death in 2004, the English DJ had practically showcased almost every seminal American and English rock band on his radio show. For about forty years, John Peel curated radio ears as he frequently gave air-time to then contemporary musicians playing music outside the traditional broadcasting sphere. From Nirvana, Black Sabbath, Bob Marley and Leonard Cohen to This Heat, Pere Ubu, Stereolab and The Slits, every rising band eventually made their way to Peel’s studio to pre-record tracks for listeners to hear throughout the week. Almost unanimously and continuously, John Peel has been cited as a heavy influence to popular music’s landscapes from Rock and R&B to Reggae, Dub, Punk, and Soul…

Subscribe now

Because I have been digging through these sessions, here’s a couple ones of interest:

1. Brian Eno and the Winkies (1974):

Recorded in 1974, this has Eno playing songs off Here Come the Warm Jets only a month after the album’s release. These Peel Sessions include a much more stripped down version of his songs “Baby’s On Fire/Totalled” and “The Paw Paw Negro Blowtorch”, as well as a cover of the Little Willie John song, “Fever”. What opening guitar riff works better than that on the first track, “Paw Paw Negro”?

2. The Sugarcubes (1987):

There are listeners who say this session never took place due to the unknown date in which these five songs were recorded. We assume them as definite Peel Sessions anyways, because of their broadcast for John Peel’s show on December in 1987. Here we are given The Sugarcubes right before their launch to international fame and four months before Life’s Too Good’s release date. Apart from the great band dynamics, the vocal deliveries are what make these recordings. Einar Örn’s spoken words on “Delicious Demon” and “Motor Crash” are reminiscent of bands like The Talking Heads or The B-52s, but Björk is definitely what places The Sugarcubes in a league of their own.

3. Ann Peebles (1974):

Capturing her at the height of her popularity, these Peel Sessions also capture something entirely different than the studio versions found off I Can’t Stand the Rain. Ann Peebles here is fierce and raw backed by her brass and rhythm bands. “Slipped, Tripped, & Fell in Love” and “You Keep Me Hanging On”, although missing from the aforementioned album, fit entirely in this collection of songs. What really stands out of these Peel Sessions however, is the sound Peebles is able to get out of the studio; no one has sounded as good.

4. The Mummies (1994):

Although presented over eighty-five hundred miles from home, the San Bruno band, The Mummies, were given a chance to shred their way through these four songs, each heavily inspired by their cheap kicks, 60s garage-rock, and complete budget mindful practices. I haven’t been able to find a more satisfying version of “The Fly” (maybe this one?) than the one present on Peel’s show. Something about the sound is much more fuller and deeper than The Mummies have ever sounded before. The performance even clocks in under ten minutes! Ready to raise the dead?

5. Jim O’Rourke (1999):

Although not necessarily a “live” performance, singer/songwriter Jim O’Rourke recorded these songs by himself back in 1999 to send to John Peel. Even if composed of three pre-recorded tracks, each one is so wonderfully performed and contained, it leaves you content regardless. The “Halfway to a Threeway” recorded here is miles ahead of the one given to us through the EP version. In all seriousness though, even if I could experience the sound collage (tape loops?) at the end of “Little Island Walking” endlessly, “Prelude to 110 or 220/Women of the World” is what I would like to be wrapped in for the rest of my life.

Do your own exploring! As I have been listening, YouTube channels FruitierThanThou and Vibracobra23 have been uploading various sessions throughout Peel’s and his performer’s careers. Maybe your own artist has some Peel Sessions? If they do or not, John Peel is still an important figure to consider as we move more and more away from radio broadcasting. Are our current artists still given the ability to showcase new sounds/songs to a larger audience or has that disappeared due to new emerging forms of media (YouTube, Soundcloud, Bandcamp, Spotify)?

Angel Recommends:

Animation, and the perception thereof, has come a long way. Save for some stuffy academic circles and the occasional confused parent, the consensus that animation is a legitimate art form with the capacity for mature storytelling is becoming increasingly common. The past decade, especially, has seen a strong uptick in serialized animated television. Avatar: The Last Airbender set the stage as far back as ‘05, and Adventure Time really kicked off the movement a few years later. Since then, we’ve seen modern classics like Gravity Falls, Over the Garden Wall, Steven Universe, and even an Avatar sequel series in the form of The Legend of Korra. These shows are all for children, they’re all critically acclaimed, and they’re all deeply complex.

Adult animation is in a comparatively strange place. Popularity-wise, it’s doing just fine; I’m sure even some of the most devoted Rick and Morty fans are sick of seeing it absolutely everywhere. But what about quality? The whole concept of “cartoons, but with an edge!” was undeniably born from and popularized by The Simpsons, which was arguably the funniest show on television for a good ten or so years.

But I’d argue that a good deal of modern adult animation takes more after Family Guy and South Park: at best, relatively funny without much substance. At worst, crass, intentionally offensive, and predicated on shock value. With the apparent rise of mainstream animated storytelling, why is animation for adults still more childish than animation for kids?

Subscribe now

To be clear, I’m not arguing that adult animation is all bad, or even that it’s all mindless (and even then, mindlessness isn’t necessarily a bad thing). I’m arguing that it can, and should, go further. Look, I like Rick and Morty. It’s definitely no masterpiece, but I have fun watching it, and the show’s efforts to deepen its story and characters have been mostly successful. But it really does feel like an obstacle course sometimes; I find myself having to bob and weave around material that actively impedes my enjoyment.

I remember the first few episodes in particular were a major slog, and I was about ready to quit after hearing what felt like the millionth rape joke (it was probably only the fifth or sixth, but that stuff wears you down fast, man). The show mostly outgrew cheap shots like that, but why were they necessary in the first place? Just to remind the viewer that, yes, you’re watching a super grown-up thing that makes nasty jokes on purpose because it can? It’s about the best explanation I can come up with.

R&M is sort of the hot-button adult cartoon right now, but there are plenty more that can, and should, be examined critically. Venture Bros., a rare example of an adult cartoon that tells a tightly-serialized story, is one of my favorites, but it’s still rife with uncomfortable hurdles. On the other side of the spectrum, there are absurdist comedies like Aqua Teen Hunger Force, a show I love but which aims for nothing more than complete, utter stupidity; a friend of mine once aptly described it as being “for people who think the word ‘condom’ is funny” (guilty as charged, I guess).

Shows like Bob’s Burgers exist somewhere in the middle: laid-back, episodic, not really doing anything especially new. And that’s not a bad thing – Bob’s Burgers is wonderful, and probably the most accessible and inoffensive adult cartoon – but I’d love to see more shows utilize the medium to deliver smart, cutting satire in the same vein as earlier Simpsons. King of the Hill, Daria, and The Boondocks come to mind, but cartoons like these are fewer and further between than I’d like them to be.

Meanwhile, the complexity of children’s animation has grown considerably, and continues to do so. Over the Garden Wall is a moody, allegorical story about two siblings coming to terms with death. Steven Universe is about an adolescent boy coping with his late mother’s complicated legacy, and figuring out how to best carry on her efforts as a revolutionary.

And then there’s Avatar: The Last Airbender, which, as far as I’m concerned, is the crown jewel of Western animation, if not television in general (oh, I’m saying it). A sweeping epic about war, culture, religion, imperialism, racism, and family, it has some of the most nuanced, well-developed characters and storytelling of any show I’ve ever seen, with a healthy dollop of gorgeous animation on top. And then Korra took all the worldbuilding from the first series and made a political drama out of it.

It boggles my mind that these cartoons are for kids, not because I think the material is above them – kids are way smarter than people like to believe – but because it doesn’t really exist anywhere else. I can only imagine what form an adult-oriented cartoon would take if it were given scope and attention to detail on par with that of Avatar, and then built on that foundation to explore more mature themes, without any of the tastelessness.

Again, I like plenty of adult cartoons, despite my misgivings. The only well-known ones I can confidently say I hate are the aforementioned Family Guy and South Park, and it’s a shame that these two have as much pull in the industry as they do, but I still have faith that it can grow beyond them.

I owe a good chunk of that faith to BoJack Horseman, an ongoing Netflix show released a few years back that continues to garner critical praise. BoJack is a darkly comic exploration of mental illness and celebrity culture masquerading as a goofy animal cartoon, and it comes closest to embodying what I want to see most from adult animation: its characters are interesting, its story is serialized, it’s funny without punching down, and it’s received recognition as a compelling drama in its own right.

The show has, for many, eroded barriers between animation and live-action, reinforcing the notion that the former can be just as interesting as the latter. Time will tell if BoJack inspires positive change, but on behalf of all the other animation nuts out there who just want some quality ‘toons, here’s hoping.

Amazon’s highly promoted, widely celebrated, and golden-globe awarded TV show, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, tells the story of a newly single woman discovering herself in 1950s New York City, setting out a new path for herself as a comedian.

Midge Maisel, as played by Rachel Brosnahan, is a loud, proud, and genuinely funny character throughout much of the show. Midge’s quick wit and coolness in the face of adversity leads to her complete control over most situations. Midge has something I think most people would love to have: an ease at getting everything she wants.

Subscribe now

She wants the upper-west side lifestyle, and she somehow gets it. Even when faced with the reality of her financial status, Midge barely experiences any form of struggle. While easily securing a well-paying and elegant job, Midge also maintains her lavish lifestyle through her wealthy parents. How Midge’s father, a mathematics professor, can afford that Upper West Side apartment, I will never know. Midge never experiences the hardships typically associated with economic ruin.

One of the most laughable aspects of the show is the ease at which Midge falls into a career in stand up comedy. Being funny doesn’t make you an undiscovered Seinfeld equivalent. Being a good stand-up comic requires years and years of honing your skills. Zach Galifianakis, one of the biggest names in the game, admitted to students of the USC School of Dramatic Arts: “I still bomb all the time.” Sure, Midge has to work on the wording of her jokes until they get the biggest laugh, but she never falls flat on her face. Midge always has something to say, and what she says is always amusing. If even the most respected stand-ups fail, why doesn’t Midge?

She wants her husband to come crawling back; she eventually gets that too. Supposedly in a mental crisis after her husband leaves her, Midge cracks a few jokes, gets super drunk and heads out to the comedy club, finally spending a couple of days getting a new job and a new dream. She quickly starts a flirtatious banter with a handsome comedy idol, as her distraught husband pleads with her to get back together.

For a show that’s supposed to be about a woman finding her own way in life, a lot of it focuses on her relationships with men. So much time is spent looking at how Joel, Midge’s husband, is feeling about everything. Joel is heartbroken, Joel is moving in with his girlfriend, Joel is sad that Midge is finding so much success. Honestly, why should we even care about what Joel is doing, when the premise of the show is Midge and her independence? The same could be said about Abe Weissman, Midge’s father. The ironic thing is, I thought those actors, Michael Zegen and Tony Shalhoub, delivered the best performances of the entire show. Their characters had depth and complexity, something that was sorely missing from the character of Midge.

All in all, there is something to say about a show where the main character is a charming, talented, and assertive woman. Midge does not wait to be saved from the crumbling of a once perfect life, but finds a way to save herself. Though I wish Midge had more to her personality than just being the classic overachiever, I’m glad that she at least has a voice.

It’s a good movie.

Not in a so-bad-it’s-good way. Not even in an ehh-it’s-whatever-I’ll-watch-it-if-it’s-on way. It really, actually is a good movie.

My name is Cole Kronman, and I love National Treasure.

The elephant in the room is, of course, Nicolas Cage. I’ll readily admit that he’s quite possibly the most mockable celebrity of all time – we’ve all seen such classics as “I’M A VAMPIRE!” and “NOT THE BEES!” – but I mock Cage the same way I’d mock a little brother. I love the guy. He truly shines in the right role (if you think I’m lying, please, please watch Raising Arizona), and even in his more… eccentric performances, the amount of charisma he brings to the table is nothing short of admirable. Hilarious, but admirable.

Thing is, I feel like National Treasure is unfairly caught in the crossfire of these discussions. When Cage naysayers try claiming he’s a bad actor, it’s usually the first thing they bring up. “Man, remember when he said he was gonna steal the Declaration of Independence? Wasn’t that LAME?” Actually, no, it was super awesome, and so is the rest of the movie. I don’t know when we all decided that National Treasure sucks, but I’m here to set the record straight.

Plot-wise, yeah, it’s pretty basic stuff. A historian, Benjamin Gates, is hunting for a lost treasure supposedly hinted at on the back of the Declaration of Independence. To find it, he’s gonna have to crack codes, solve riddles, and deliver a couple funny one-liners. Nothing too special.

That’s just it, though. National Treasure makes a point of leaning hard into well-tread action movie cliches, and it does so in ways that are consistently, wonderfully fun. Part of me suspects that’s why the movie gets a lot of flak – it’s a very goofy, family-friendly romp, and that can be jarring when viewed next to a legacy of hyper violent films like Terminator and Die Hard. Ben Gates isn’t a muscled manwich with a semi-automatic slung over his shoulder. He’s an idealist, a family man, someone who’s in the game not for power, not for revenge, but for discovery. Here is an action hero who’s not afraid to be sincere, who goes weak in the knees when he sees a historical monument, overcome by the sheer beauty of it all. Cage, with his oddball, weirdly down-to-earth persona, couldn’t be a better fit.

This optimism extends to every corner of the movie. The three main characters – protagonist Ben, sidekick Riley, and love interest Abigail – have great chemistry, and share an infectious appreciation for historiography. There’s the odd chase scene, but the movie’s most gripping moments are when someone is on the verge of solving a particularly tricky puzzle (and for what it’s worth, this movie has some great puzzles; the scene where they pull Benjamin Franklin’s glasses out of a secret alcove behind Independence Hall still blows my mind).

Sean Bean plays the antagonist, Ian, as an overgrown schoolyard bully, irked by his rival’s success. At the end, rather than going down in a bombastic gunfight, he’s simply led away in cuffs. And when Ben finds the treasure he’s been looking for his whole life, he makes it public, putting that knowledge in the hands of the people. In his eyes, history shouldn’t be kept from anyone.

Good-natured candor like this is in short supply in Hollywood. Amid an endless sea of grittiness, a sunny-side-up action-adventure escapade that actively pushes against cynicism is a rare gem. That’s not to say gritty films don’t have their place – they absolutely do – but sometimes you just need a break. And right now, more than ever, I think that break is well-deserved. In this era of rampant bigotry and institutional incompetence on practically every level, Ben Gates is an endlessly refreshing character. He believes, more than anything, in good old-fashioned democracy: the inalienable rights of the common man, and the responsibility of elected leaders to work in their country’s best interests. Here in the real world, that sort of thing seems more and more like a far-flung fantasy every day. For the time being, maybe National Treasure can be that fantasy.

I would love nothing more than to forget the fact that this film ever made it to theaters (or to have been hit by a bus on my way to the theatre to see it), but I felt like it would be counterproductive to keep my opinions about this remake buried away. First off, not only was the new Murder on the Orient Express remake unnecessary, but it just wasn’t good…at all.

Subscribe now

Last year, my good friend Tam showed me a trailer for an upcoming murder-mystery film with an “All-Star Cast.” Although I could’ve sworn it was another Clue movie, it turned out to be Murder on the Orient Express. I must’ve ignored the fact that Imagine Dragon’s “Believer” played in the trailer, because for some crazy reason I thought it looked pretty good.

You know when you see a trailer for a film you really want to see, and you become completely obsessed with it? That was me. I did my homework by reading the novel and watching the original remake of the film. Agatha Christie’s novel (by the same name) was nothing below brilliant. A classic detective novel from the 1930’s, it launched the “Who Done It?” phenomenon. Sidney Lumet’s 1974 version of the film now stands as one of my favorite classics. I couldn’t have been more excited.

As soon as I read “Murder on the Orient Express: Now Playing” at the Regal downtown, I called my friends up and we literally ran there. The show was sold out so we waited for the next showtime. Alas, the moment I’ve waited months on end for was here, and I was finally able to watch the film I highly anticipated.

Maybe the film wasn’t the worst one ever made in Hollywood history and it’s just my harsh opinion; I can only see the movie as it should have been. Wait. Actually, I take that back; I can say generously that it was terrible. Everything about this adaptation was unnecessary, wrong, overdone, and discomforting. As a matter of fact, the best decision made in the production was to kill off Johnny Depp in the first fifteen minutes. However, that’s besides the point, so let’s start with Branagh.

Director Kenneth Branagh felt inclined to cast himself as Hercule Poirot. I wasn’t completely against the idea at first, but he tried too hard to make his character a badass. This Poirot was a Sherlock Holmes-like detective instead of the quirky, egg-shaped man Christie originally wrote. His mustache was pretty ridiculous and the backstory added for his character was even more so. Branagh accorded himself more screen time than all of his illustrious co-stars combined, and I don’t understand why nobody stopped him.

The world watched in anticipation as world-renowned stars piled into the C.G.I train, including Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz, Michelle Pfeiffer, Leslie Odom Jr., and Willem Dafoe. Perhaps the casting directors didn’t realize that sometimes, too many good things could be a bad combination. The expectations were too high, the performances were terrible (it’s no wonder Michelle Pfeiffer hasn’t been nominated for any awards in the past twenty years), and the audience never got the chance to sit down and become familiar with any of the reinvented classic characters. Besides that glorious moment, the entire film felt like a squishy, overdone vanity project.

Generally, the film was far more theatrical than Christie’s novel intended the story to be. It was shot in 65-millimeter format, which offers a particular kind of “big movie” resolution, and it wasn’t difficult to pinpoint what the film was failing to achieve: substance. The Orient Express and the entire surrounding environment was entirely C.G.I., and I had no choice but to cover my eyes during an avalanche scene; I felt like I was watching a cheaper version of The Polar Express.

The film ended with Poirot lining up the passengers in the entrance to a tunnel where he explained his theory of exactly how the crime was committed, and even though this was a “big Hollywood moment,” did no one notice that any second a train could enter the tunnel and obliterate each and every one of his suspects?

I was glad to leave the theatre that day, and even more glad to hear that my friends hated the film as much as I did. A friend from home told me that he thought I’d love the movie, and I took offense. Times like this stand as needed reminders that not every movie will be perfect, and not every cinematic experience will leave me satisfied. I guess what I’m saying is that if you’re interested in seeing the new Murder on the Orient Express, just don’t.

On May 14th of this year, the last episode of Seinfeld will turn 20. First airing on July 5, 1989, Seinfeld ran for 9 seasons with 180 episodes. Having one of the most lasting influences on television and pop culture, Seinfeld references are still some of the most commonly used, from the Puffy Shirt to the Marble Rye. And as a Festivus enthusiast, here are a few instances where I felt this self-proclaimed “show about nothing” was right about everything.

Subscribe now

1. George on the importance of sleep.

2. Thoughts on person accomplishment.

3. On juggling friendships.

4. Congested Public Transportation.

5. When you’re reeeeeeally hungry.

6. Finding the motivation to get things done.

7. Finally, on 2017.

I recently had a friend send me a quote via text – “I will always cherish my initial misconception of you.” My friend then explained, “It reminded me of what we all do … how we create fantasies around people, imbuing them with our dreams, desires, romantic longings…”

This idea – the projection of personality onto our ‘crushes’ – reminded me instantly of nineties cult-classic TV show My So-Called Life. MSCL brought us the complex, introspective and deeply longing character of Angela Chase. Angela, the show’s fifteen year-old lead, is both naive and subtly wise, leading audiences through her tangential thoughts in her many ‘like’ infused voiceovers. (“There’s something about Sunday night that really makes you want to kill yourself,” she muses.)

Subscribe now

A central plot line of the show is Angela’s infatuation with teen dream Jordan Catalano, who boasts shaggy hair and inexplicable cool. In contrast to Angela’s thoughtful demeanor, Jordan is coarse and intellectually limited. Angela is infatuated by Jordan, who she sees from afar and likes for the qualities she believes he possesses. (“He’s always closing his eyes, like it hurts to look at things.”)

Jordan is somewhat interested in Angela, especially in the physical aspect of her, but fails to do what so many of us are guilty of – he fails to truly see her. In teenage solidarity, she in turn fails to see him. His many failings are lost on her – his lack of sensitivity, his mistreatment of her, his conformity to his friend group… leading to a desire doomed to dissatisfaction.

An interesting scene in the series addresses the way that love occurs. The student’s high school English teacher shares a Shakespeare sonnet with the class, in which Shakespeare writes of a mistress who is by no means an angel: “My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun; / Coral is far more red than her lips’ red.” Shakespeare’s love is not a goddess, she “treads on the ground.” When asked why Shakespeare loves this girl, Brian, Angela’s neighborhood friend and the school’s resident nerd, answers, “She’s not just a fantasy. She’s got, like, flaws. She’s real.”

Brian and Jordan are shown contemplating their feelings for Angela. Jordan appears to be coming to terms that he might like Angela even if she is not the type of girl he ‘sees’ himself with. In this scene, the characters are asked to think of what it means to love someone, and what one should be loved for. They are asked to discover the reality of one another and to love each other for the truth that presents itself.

As the series ends, Angela is becoming more aware of Jordan as a person and perhaps her lack of true affection for him. In the final episode, Brian tells her of his feelings for her (via a letter he wrote as Jordan) and she finally listens. She is then caught between the two – her infatuation with Jordan which is beginning to fade and her slowly developing interest in Brian. This change of feeling from Jordan to Brian marks an interesting moment in Angela – the time we all begin to grow up from romantic fantasy and demand the reality of connection. Although Jordan is ‘hot,’ as in having social status and high levels of ‘cool,’ in the end, Angela is doomed to dissatisfaction with him. She begins her awakening as she realizes someone who cares and sees her – truly sees – might just be worth it.

If you like The Handmaid’s Tale, you’ll love The Magdalene Sisters. After studying abroad in Ireland for a semester, I have come out with a much better understanding and appreciation for Irish films. Although there is a lot to say about Irish cinema, one of my favorite films that I saw while abroad was The Magdalene Sisters (2002). This was the film that really made me appreciate my Irish cinema class, because it made me realize that without enrolling in this course, I would not have otherwise known about an incredibly interesting and equally disturbing era of Irish (and world) history.

The Magdalene Sisters is based off of true events, focusing on three young women who are put in a Magdalene Asylum (or Magdalene Laundry) in 1964. These asylums, which were also located in Australia, Canada, England, and even the United States, were first opened in Ireland in 1839 and not closed until 1996. These asylums housed “fallen women” or women who were deemed immoral in some way and needed “to work out their sins” similar to Mary Magdalene in the Bible who “den[ied] all pleasures of the flesh including sleep” to work hard labour to get into heaven, as Sister Bridget in the film states. This laundries were funded but not overseen by the Irish government, making the Catholic church, which was extremely corrupt and feel of sex and abuse scandals at this time, completely in charge of thousands of women, most of whom never left these laundries.

Subscribe now

The film focuses on Margaret, who is locked up shortly after being raped, Bernadette, who is accused of being a temptress, and Rose, a young girl who has a child out of wedlock and is forced to give it up for adoption. All of these reasons for locking up a woman are wrong, but I find Bernadette’s to be the most interesting.

When we first meet Bernadette, she is seen being flirted with by a number of boys. She is mostly passive in this conversation, but refuses to kiss any of them. Though, her hand remains on her lips the whole time, an act that is arguably sexual. This alone convinces others that she is a threat to the men around her, and that she could possibly tempt the men into straying from God. The most ponderable quote of the film comes from two girls who speak to Bernadette before she is locked up.

As they brush her hair, one of them asks her “isn’t it a sin to be beautiful?” Bernadette responds by saying “no[…] it’s a sin to be vain”, whether you agree with that statement or not is your own opinion, but I’d argue that this film is making a commentary in relation to this. At this time, to be beautiful was equivalent to being vain, and in that way, it is a sin to be beautiful. Because of this, Bernadette must be taken out of society and punished. At one point in the film, Bernadette attempts to escape, and when she is found, the nuns hold her down as they cut off her hair as punishment. This way, they get what they always wanted from this girl, to take away her beauty, the thing that once gave this girl happiness and strength.

I’d recommend this film to anyone who likes films about strong women, especially if you are like me, and had no idea about the existence of these laundries in the first place. This film forces us to question how society sees women, particularly because these horrible events only happened such a short time ago.

“You know that feeling when a guy you like sends you a text at two o’clock on a Tuesday night asking if he can come and find you, and you’ve accidentally made it out like you’ve just got in yourself, so you have to get out of bed, drink wine, get in the shower, shave everything, dig out some Agent Provocateur business – suspender belt, the whole bit – and wait by the door until the buzzer goes? [BUZZER] And then you open the door to him, like you’ve almost forgotten he’s coming over.”

Welcome to the wonderful deranged world of Fleabag, an Amazon Original series adapted from a one woman play by Phoebe Waller-Bridge (who also plays Fleabag in the TV adaptation). That opening line is preceded by a sex scene with anal sex and concludes in a hilarious joke, all in with in the first five minutes of the show. This striking opening sequence sets the tone for more to come as Fleabag drags us into a deeply personal shared experience of her world which will sadly only all come crashing down as we realize we know nothing about her.

Subscribe now

This show is a sharp witty take on a modern dislikable woman. Its stark honesty and realistic depiction of modern hookup culture is hilarious and refreshing. Fleabag’s story is one of narcissism, sex, sadness, and dark humor. In many ways, she is unlikable and appears irredeemable, perhaps even irreparably broken. At the same time you can’t help but like her. She is aware of her flaws but at the same time seems to be in love with being bad. Much to the chagrin of those around her and but to her own detriment, Fleabag does what she wants.

The show keeps a light tone with Fleabags quick wit and ability to joke about any situation while dealing with complex themes. The show deals with everything from dysfunctional families, infidelity, death of a friend, betrayal, and addiction while managing to keep you laughing. Watching the rocky self destructing/self gratifying rollercoaster of Fleabag is complicated but there are elements I think a lot of people can relate to. We all have an inner Fleabag who rears her ugly head from time to time. Personally, I am a big fan and want more TV like this.

One of the most unique and my personal favorite feature of the show is Fleabags direct address of the camera. As the show went on, I became more and more accustomed to being addressed by Fleabag and hearing her internal monologue (which is dry to the bone and hilarious as hell). As a viewer, you begin to realize the entire show is structured around her perspective and subjective point of view. She introduces you to all the characters and blatantly tells you what there is to know about them, if you should like them or not.

However, I came to realize that Fleabag is an exceptionally unreliable narrator because not only is she is trying to hide the truth from you but also herself. You have been randomly dropped into her life without any prior knowledge and she uses her own perspective and what information she decides to share to shape the entire show. The viewer become an active character in the show as a surrogate friend for Fleabag filling the hole that Boo (her best friend who died) left. You are the only ones she can joke with and give a glimpse at what she’s really feeling.

Its an interesting role to fill as a viewer and you almost feel as though you are building bonds with her. You feel connected with Fleabag but gradually begin to realize that she has no one else but this third voyeur party. Her jokes and commentary on life and those around her keeps the show refreshing and highly entertaining while dragging you deeper into her life and apparently complex problems.

The other more subtle underlying element to the show is the loss of Boo and Fleabag’s grief and hidden guilt. The show makes frequent use of flashbacks to show us who Boo was and what she meant to Fleabag. We see how they understood each other fully and were there for each other fully with no judgement. In all respects they appear to be soulmates.

It becomes more understandable why Fleabag is spiraling out of control and the depth of pain that she is trying to hide. There is a correlation between how much we know about Fleabag and how much we see of Boo. Boo’s story leads the emotional arc of the show and as the truth of her death gradually unfolds, the constructed world Fleabag made for us begins to crumble.

The incident is only hinted at in the beginning and we would never guess Fleabag was involved, especially given the tender way she refers to her friend and reminisces about their friendship. The most shocking and impactful event of the show happens in the last episode where Claire (Fleabags sister) finally clues us in by bringing up how Fleabag betrayed Boo her best friend, confidant, and soul mate.

Fleabags visceral response to this completely shifts the tone of the show as she looks at us, the audience her surrogate companion, and suddenly realizes we know too much and is afraid of her. Her darkest deepest secret, the root of her internal hatred and pain has been dragged into the limelight and she doesn’t know how to respond. This address of the camera and fear/pain in her eyes is very unnerving and really draws attention to your personal spectatorship. The entire world Fleabag built for us, all she has told and not told us, comes together in this intense emotional arc. There is nothing left to hide; The more we learn about Fleabag, the more she breaks from our expectations.

We realize we don’t know everything about her and the fragile world she has built for the viewer that she has been trying to hide in is exposed for the sham it is. We believed she was telling us the truth but suddenly question the entire narrative world rethinking every one of her actions and how fit together with this new information. No longer are you a neutral party for her to banter with; now you know too much and see her for who she really is. The lens that was once her friend become yet another judgmental party wanting answers from her making her deal with her own painful mistakes.

You as the viewer also experience sense of loss as you lose the relationship you’ve built with Fleabag over the course of the show. She is not the same friend to us that she use to be. Our relationship has been changed by her deceit just as it was with Boo. This show vastly breaks from the traditional role of a character centered show, expanding the medium itself and the possibilities of what a TV show can be. It’s an exciting time for this medium as television creators become more experimental and are actively redefining the genre to encompass more styles. Fleabag is a product of its time and a refreshing break from the traditional thirty minute sitcom. It is equally hilarious and thoughtful and I would highly recommend giving it a watch.

We are currently in the year 1 A1D (After One Direction), and if this boyband has taught me anything, it is that change is hard. Yes, I understand that the band has declared they are in a state of Hiatus, but ever since the break, every single member has gone on to create solo music. Much like Michael Scott on The Office just yelling out the word Bankruptcy in attempt to declare it, I’m not completely sure the band understands the concept of what they stated, or rather the reality of it. Zayn’s initial split indicates that he is gone for good, never to rejoin the original 1D pack, but what makes the other members so different. Just the word Hiatus? Is that enough to keep these heartthrob boys together? Maybe they are not headed in one direction after all?

Subscribe now

This very much rings true with all the music being produced individually, because again they are all different. Zayn’s initial breakout with “Pillowtalk” felt very reminiscent of Justin Timberlake’s break from Nsync; Zayn shaved his head and made a flashy music video with a song explicitly about sex to prove that he is a grown man, no longer a member of a boyband. I say this but I am in no way trying to criticize him. Pillowtalk, despite its flaws, was a banger, and with that, you should read Jasmine Lee Ehrhardt’s previous EyeCandy article all about PillowTalk from when it first premiered.

Zayn is very much making music for himself now, and his first album, Mind of Mine, definitely stated that he is not like other pop star boys with his love for strange capitalization (ex. His song tracks titled iT’s YoU, BeFoUr, etc.). Again, no hate. His first album was great, but his newer music does make me waiver. Like his song “I Don’t Want To Live Forever,” made with Taylor Swift for the new Fifty Shades film. It just feels like selling out when his break from One Direction was clearly an act of independence and artistry. But who am I to judge. He split from One Direction on his own terms and is making a life for himself, despite the change. Zayn is a beacon of independence and possibility, and once the Hiatus was announced, every other member followed his footsteps.

Niall Horan was the first to start his solo career when he put out the song “This Town” in September of 2016. But the thing about this song, it sounds exactly like a One Direction song except it is only one voice. This isn’t a bad thing. I would not be writing any of this if I didn’t love One Direction in the first place. Niall’s new music is then not at all off brand, but he is rather embracing his strengths. He is not ashamed of his past boyband-hood and he is not trying to declare himself a reborn person like Zayn did with his new music.

Niall is being Niall. Just a plain Irish guy who was once part of a boyband but now isn’t. Niall continued to put out another song in May of 2017 called “Slow Hands” which is obviously a song about sex, but it is executed in a very upbeat nature that you are distracted from the sexual undertones of the lyrics. Very boyband like. But again, another banger. Niall’s solo departure, like Zayn’s, is also his own style, which also happens to be a boy band style.

Louis Tomlinson was the next to go solo although he was not solo, he ganged up with popular DJ Steve Aoki. Although this solo career really just culminated with one single. Pretty anti-climactic. But Tomlinson is busy, he was a guest judge for The X Factor, the show that got him started, for awhile, working with Simon Cowell on other unnamed projects. He is also the first from the boyband to become a father, having a son with a girl from L.A., which I find pretty distressful (I also just find babies and people having babies in their early 20’s very stressful in general).

I get it Louis, you are just taking advantage of your fame, but fame doesn’t stop you from getting diseases. Be safe. Not to mention, this news was pre-hiatus, meaning despite this new fatherhood, he was still in an active boy band member. One day, this will probably be a great story to tell his son. And I’m sure that Louis is a great father and really taking this new post 1D time to spend on his child. But if he isn’t, at least he still has a lot of money from being in the most successful boy band of the modern era.

Talking about boyband members having kids brings me to the next person, Liam Payne. The second former 1D member to have a child, is also on to great things. He spent his post 1D life mainly working as a music producer, as well as being lovey dovey with a woman ten years older than him and having a baby together (Honestly though, good for them).

He, very recently, got signed and put out the single “Strip that Down” which I honestly have not been able to listen all the way through without cringing a little bit. Some of his lyrics include “You know, I used to be in 1D (now I’m out, free) / People want me for one thing (that’s not me) / I’m not changing, the way, that I (used to be).” Really something and I honestly don’t know what to make of it. With my lack of commentary, I think I’m just going to move on.

And this brings me to Harry Styles, and the main reason I am writing this article in the first place. Harry, who has been off the grid acting in Christopher Nolan’s new big movie, just put out his own solo album, eloquently called “Harry Styles.” I am utterly entranced by his new album and I think that may even be an understatement. The album seems to go deep, mean more than surface level pop music that Harry Styles made while in One Direction.

First off, he wrote the lyrics himself, which does in fact make the album more personal. But I can’t help myself from wondering what does it mean? Who is Harry Styles? A solo career is inherently more personal than being in a boyband, but the thing about Harry is that he is a mystery. His personal life section on wikipedia is the shortest of all of them. Harry Styles was the pretty boy, and a mysterious one; with his plethora of tattoos and his long hair I often found myself wondering what he is like in real life. But one thing this new album taught me is that he is real. Making him way more tangible than his previous pop star person.

The musician Mitski really captures this idea perfectly in her review of the album, which is titled “One Projection: Harry Styles and the Art of Idealism.” To her, Harry has also always been so far away, the pretty face that you can only observe at a distance. But this album brings him closer, puts him at the bus stop right next to you. And when you start talking to him, he is normal.

Her description of this supposed Harry Styles is both evocative and hilarious; “You miraculously get to talking while you wait for the bus, only to find that this beautiful, distant boy from school sometimes says stupid things like, ‘You’re cool, no one else knows who the Beatles are,’ or is awkward and nervous sometimes, like you.” And she is right. I can picture him like this perfectly, especially after this album. If you get a chance, read Mitski’s piece, because it really captures the new Harry Styles.

Well, this is where we are. Currently surviving a time post 1D, and every member seems to be off onto greener pastures. And when I said that this band split taught me that change is hard, I didn’t mean for them. They are all moving on pretty gracefully, but me on the other hand, I’m a wreck. I’m an adult, a 20 year old college student whose life should not be so preoccupied by a boyband. But they are a part of my history. I can still remember when their first single, “What Makes You Beautiful” came out. It made me want to dance. Then I remember listening to their very first album, playing the song “Moments” in my bedroom at night. That song made me want to cry. After their initial release as a band, we did have a turbulent past. I would lose interest but I could not help but love them from afar. That’s who they always were to me. Loves from afar. But now they are broken up, all separate, making them spread a little farther. But does that make them harder to love? Maybe not harder, but definitely less convenient. I am a busy college student after all.

We might have thrown all their tea in the Boston harbor during the Revolutionary War, but in the television world America is fiending for all things British. Adapting UK shows for American screens is a subcategory of television unto itself, running the gamut from reality television to award-winning dramatic series. Shameless, House of Cards, and American Idol are a few examples of wildly successful adaptations, whereas the American Broadchurch – Gracepoint – was cancelled after one season, and The Great British Bake Off has been adapted twice now for American television, with middling results.

Subscribe now

Why do some adaptations do better than their British prototype, while others crash and burn from the get-go? Let’s look at two examples of both good and bad adaptations: The Office and Skins, respectively. If you compare the UK and US pilots from both of these series, the adaptation is nearly shot-for-shot identical to its original. With Skins, this led to 42 minutes of embarrassment, but The Office is even funnier in its second form. There are two reasons for this:

Originally posted by whatevurfloatsyourboat

#1: The Actors. When it comes down to it, the cast of teenagers on the American Skins had none of the charisma or chemistry of their British predecessors. They were unmemorable individually, and almost completely indistinguishable as a group. In the UK version of The Office, it’s clear Ricky Gervais’ David Brent is the brightest star, but the American reboot established not only a goofy boss in Michael Scott, but an indelibly ridiculous secondary character in Dwight Schrute.

#2: The Culture. By almost completely replicating the dialogue and story arc from Skins in its American iteration, the show did itself a huge disservice in the authenticity department. The party scene for British teens is wildly different than their American cousins. While both casts of characters engage in underage drinking during the show, the UK show is informed by pub culture and the Bristolian clubbing scene. The American show lacks our country’s puritanical influence on booze, and the fact that it takes place in Baltimore (where alcohol is only available at ABC stores) means nothing to the story. A small corporation that sells paper out of an office, however, is bland enough to be culturally translatable, and all of the characters’ choices hold up when moving from the English version to the American edition.

US television executives won’t stop adapting UK shows any time soon. But making a hit stateside with British goods isn’t an easy shortcut, and a successful swap requires more than changing accents, it requires flexibility with both content and form. Here’s hoping they don’t try to pull an American Downton Abbey on us any time soon.

I decided to study abroad in Rome for various reasons– the art, the culture, the food, being just a few. However, when I told my (mostly female) peers about my decision, an overwhelming majority of them seemed to reference the same thing. “Oh, is it because of The Lizzie McGuire Movie?” they asked. I had apparently missed out on the huge cultural event that was The Lizzie McGuire Movie and my peers’ introduction to the Eternal City. It wasn’t until two months into living in Rome that I finally watched it.

Instead, my relationship to the city was mostly based on the famous film: Roman Holiday. While William Wyler’s Academy Award-winning film is seen as a classic, The Lizzie McGuire Movie has just a 40% on Rotten Tomatoes. That being said, I’m not so sure that they’re so different as their reputations suggest.

Subscribe now

Upon closer inspection, these two films are strangely similar. In Roman Holiday, a princess takes a day off from her royal duties and explores the city with a charming American who knows his way around, but might have ulterior motives. In The Lizzie McGuire Movie, a young girl escapes from her school group to get a tour of the city from a local boy. Oh, and he also happens to be charming, with seemingly ulterior motives. Both films use Rome and its colorful locals and ancient past as a backdrop for the growth of these two young women as they break apart from their stifling lives and ultimately find themselves through their adventures.

These similar premises seem innocuous enough and yet, to analyze the endings of these films reveals their ultimately feminist message. In the end of Roman Holiday, Audrey Hepburn’s character of the princess ultimately chooses to go back to her royal duties, with the assumption that she and Gregory Peck’s character will never see each other. Though this ending has broken many a viewer’s heart (mine included), it is refreshing to see a depiction of a woman who does not change her entire life for the sake of a man. She will not throw away her position for a man she has known for one day, no matter how magical of a day it was.

Similarly, in The Lizzie McGuire Movie, the climactic scene of the concert reveals that Lizzie must choose between believing in Paolo, the cute Italian boy she has known for only a few days, and the girl she was told by him to hate—Isabella. Ultimately Paolo’s less-than-noble motives are revealed, and Lizzie ends the night with a solo performance, showing that she has gained enough confidence to believe in herself. This ending shows Lizzie drawing her confidence from within herself instead of from a boy.

In my opinion, neither film gets the credit it deserves. Though Roman Holiday is called a classic, people often dismiss it as overly sentimental and unsubstantial. The Lizzie McGuire Movie receives worse criticism, even described as “fluff” in its description on Rotten Tomatoes. In this way, both films certainly do not escape the tendency of movies aimed at female audiences to be cast aside as too emotional and vapid. However, these two films, are particularly important examples of movies with messages that are positive for young girls. Instead of showing happiness as only achievable by ending up with a boy, both Roman Holiday and The Lizzie McGuire Movie give the viewer a fun adventure through the city of Rome, and have their female protagonist draw strength from her friends, family, and, most importantly, herself.

1. Chewing Gum’s creator/writer and star is Michaela Coel, who adapted the show from her award-winning one-woman play Chewing Gum Dreams. Both the play and the show are based loosely on her own life experiences as a British black woman.

Subscribe now

2. There are only 6 episodes, yet the show magically is able to address a variety of topics, including religion, losing your virginity, drugs, sexuality, and class.

3. It’s FUNNY.

4. Tracey, the main character, defies traditional stereotypes of hypersexualized black women. Tracey is super awkward, grew up in a socially conservative Pentacostal Christian household, and her goal in the show is to lose her virginity.

5. Tracey likes to break the fourth wall to tell us what’s going on, which is thoroughly enjoyable.

6. Tracey’s facial expressions.

7. The show explodes with color and spirit, especially in its portrayal of poorer living communities.

8. The one-liners are absolutely killer.

9. Because it’s just a great show, duh.

When Amazon’s The Man in the High Castle first premiered in early 2015, the dystopian world the series depicted seemed unimaginable. While I’ve always loved alternative historical media on WWII—particularly when the Allied Forces enact brutal revenge on Nazis —The Man in the High Castle offered a different type of alternative I hadn’t before seen: one where the Axis power won.

Watching the first season when it initially premiered was a far different experience than watching the second and most recent season that premiered in December of 2016, as it had seemed fantastical that America could adopt any political system remotely similar to that within the series. Although the series depicts a dystopian society rooted in the prominence of evil, the xenophobia already heavily exhibited in Trump’s presidency gives The Man in the High Castle a different context from a fictional fascist alternate reality to a glimpse of what is potentially to come in the next four years in America.

Subscribe now

My understanding is that anyone’s first reaction to the purely evil alternative reality shown on The Man in the High Castle would be to sigh in relief that we do not live in that “alternate reality” under an oppressive and malevolent Axis control. However, with America having willfully allowed a man touting a blatantly racist and sexist political agenda to become the most powerful man in the country, The Man in the High Castle no longer feels like fantastical historical fiction. No longer being able to find solace in the fact that a television show depicting an outlandish fascist dystopia is purely fictitious is absolutely terrifying.

This caused me to question whether all audiences with disagreeing political views– particularly those who sympathize with Trump– would also find the content of the show so vile. Is there any way that conservative audiences can justify the way present-day America looks under Nazi and Japanese control in the series, or are they so steeped in their own version of xenophobia they they can’t recognize the horrifying similarities?

The parallels between The Man in the High Castle and Trump’s presidency are frightening. Where in the series Hitler becomes infuriated by videotapes depicting a world without Nazi control, Trump is enraged by the fact that Americans can laugh along to Alec Baldwin’s accurate portrayal of him on SNL as a pathetic leader. Trump, similar to Hitler in the series, wants to censor the media so Americans are unaware of the reality of how spineless and weak he is.

American citizens living under the Nazi and Japanese regimes in the show are widely viewed as second class citizens, similar to how minorities are viewed by the Trump administration and voters. The Man in the High Castle also depicts a physically divided America, with three distinct sections: The Nazi Reich, the Japanese Pacific States, and the Neutral Zone. The election of Trump resulted in an extremely divided nation, with people who live in the “liberal bubble” Trump supporters often reference in regards to predominately Democratic states feeling completely opposed to all that Trump supporting Republicans stand for, and vice versa.

Especially in the Trump era, media has the responsibility to entertain, educate, and motivate change. The similarities between the storylines of The Man in the High Castle and what is currently happening under Trump’s presidency prove that although America has previously successfully defeat evil, we still have an extremely long way to go to overcome the racist, sexist, and xenophobic attitudes held by so many Americans today. Hopefully, with shows like The Man in the High Castle that portray a dystopia no longer rooted in fiction, audiences will be motivated to do all they can to prevent such evil from fully taking over our world right now by fighting back against oppression.

If you have the resources, please consider donating to the ACLU, which helps defend the liberties and rights of American citizens. Read more about it and donate here: https://action.aclu.org/secure/donate-to-aclu

As someone with Native Hawaiian ancestry, I was excited to see Disney’s new feature film, Moana (2016). However, I was skeptical of what I was about to see. Would it be an accurate portrayal of cultures that seldom get screen time, except for when their land is marketed to visitors to buy? I was skeptical because Disney is a for-profit company that will see all the income for this film, so what incentive did they have to depict these cultures in an accurate way?

Lastly, I was skeptical because Disney’s Halloween costume page tried to sell a brown-face costume of Maui the Demigod, complete with a muscular body and tattoos printed all over it. Surprisingly, even with all of my initial reservations, I left the theater happy with what I saw. Disney did a great job with their cultural research and the digital art was just as beautiful as the story. Yet, I had one question:

Subscribe now

I’ve studied Oceania, with a special focus on the many different tattoo styles of the countries within Oceania. Each style is distinct and meaningful to each particular culture. While watching Moana, I noticed that Disney did their research in this area, too. Moana’s father has a traditional Samoan Pe’a, while Moana’s grandmother had ink that seemed more Hawaiian-style.

Yet, I believe the film purposefully tried to blend the traditional tattoo styles from more than one country so as to create more ambiguity around where Moana is actually from. It makes sense at first, because I suppose the story takes place 2,000 years ago, when not all of the islands have been voyaged to yet. But if that is the case, Disney would not use Hawaiian mythology (Maui’s character), since Hawai’i was not even populated at this time. So who knows what time period this narrative took place in, since it seems to be both old and modern?

I’m not by any means saying that the story wasn’t good or that Moana is not worth watching, but it is important to think about the implications of a film that blends multiple cultures to create a generic representation. Although Pacific cultures are similar in many ways, there are still distinctions that set them all apart, like how not all islands have the same ink style. So does combining Samoan, Hawaiian, Tahitian, Fijian, and Maori tattoo styles found in Moana perpetuate the dreaded “tribal” genre found everywhere in tattoo shops?

I believe Disney’s intent was to not show a preference for a specific culture, so the company decided to be all-inclusive and represent a little bit of all of Polynesia within the film. However, there are better ways to do it that celebrate diversity instead of glossing over it like Disney did with Moana. Personally, I believe Disney just wanted the biggest target audience for the film, doing whatever it took to see more profit. Overall, despite the ambiguity of its cultural depictions, Moana does seem to be moving in the right direction, providing a space for the representation of Polynesian cultures.

One of my favorite things about entering the new year was the new season of The Bachelor. When the season premiered, I was still on vacation with my family and I persuaded my mom to allow me to watch it by myself in a separate room of where we were staying. Although many people see this show as an event where women gather together to watch each episode, wine glass in hand, I find myself always watching it alone in pajamas, with some sort of snack close by (I am a stress eater). But my interest in the show always confuses people, especially myself. I actually started watching it in college, rather than watching it with my family growing up, since the show’s drama helps get my mind off of stressful school work. So despite my lack of sentimentality for the show, I created my own tradition of watching The Bachelor.

But I was very surprised when I watched this season’s sneak peek that one of the female contestants has a history of dating girls. I was excited for the hope of better representation. Can you believe it? A bisexual on the most heterosexual show to ever exist? And heterosexual in a really weird way since the whole idea of this contest seems to bare a resemblance to polygamy, where one man is allowed as many females as he wants and these females just have to be okay with it. The Bachelor seems to present a reality where women must be loyal to their husbands, while their husbands may explore their sexuality and marry as many people as they want, because men are men, and they can do what they want.

Subscribe now

This is a disgusting double standard that the show continues to perpetuate, although the network seems to think that they solved the problem by creating The Bachelorette in 2003. This possibly bisexual female, named Jaimi, walks into the first day, looking awesome with a septum piercing which she announces to everyone by saying “she has balls.” Although I didn’t find this funny, I do find it endearing since there haven’t been many women on The Bachelor who show off nontraditional stylistic choices like facial piercings.

When I saw the preview, I wanted to tell the world about my excitement for The Bachelor, a show I rarely talk about with my friends. But after watching four episodes I realized they neglected one thing: actually saying the “B” word. Bisexuality is still very much taboo, and maybe ABC is consciously keeping that out of the script because if you don’t say it, maybe it doesn’t exist. Which is wrong.

Bisexuality does exist! Bisexuality is not a bad word! Bisexuality is a valid sexuality!

And I know ABC considers itself a family friendly channel, but denying a basic sexuality that many people identify as seems completely ignorant. Also, if ABC is afraid to let a child hear the word bisexual because who knows what kind of harm that will do to their innocent ears, I wanna fire back the question: who is letting their child watch The Bachelor?? The show is absurd; someone is always making out with the bachelor and they always talk about sex (I think bisexuality should be the least of your worries as a parent since your child’s innocence is likely already tainted after watching the opening credits). But honestly, this omission of the word bisexuality bewilders me.

Despite not saying the “B” word, Jaimi did at one point jokingly call herself a lesbian while she had to do an athletic event. Which makes me further question ABC’s choices. They exclude bisexuality but they allow a person to jokingly call herself a lesbian in a stereotypical fashion? Even more disturbing is how ABC allows the word lesbian so easily, as if queerness according to popular television can only come in a binary, heterosexual and homosexual, and nothing else can exist. Therefore, The Bachelor perpetuates a limited spectrum of sexuality, although sexuality is way more intricate, especially compared to the dumbed down version of heterosexuality provided by The Bachelor itself (man marries woman, happily ever after, etc.).

I desperately want to believe that The Bachelor can improve as a show, but I am really starting to doubt this fact, because with every step forward the show seems to also take a step back. It seems to be making no progress despite the plethora of criticism the show receives. The Bachelor represents an archaic idea of life and love and the movement toward representing more than the average heterosexual couple does seem like a sign of overall progression in society.

But also, a more selfish part of me thinks part of the reason I want The Bachelor to progress is because I want stop being heckled for watching it, and feel like I’m not a bad person for enjoying it. Beyond this one issue that I have noticed while watching The Bachelor this season, there is so much that could be discussed in relation to this issue: Jaimi’s race in comparison to the blatant racism this show seems to perpetuate with its unforgiving whiteness, how bisexuality and lesbianism are fetishized among straight men, the overall hostility towards bisexuality, and more.

But hey, the season isn’t over yet. Actually we are only six episodes in, and Jaimi still hasn’t been eliminated. So maybe the show with continue to surprise viewers this season and finally use “bisexual” in the text of this show. Or maybe bisexuality will be left unsaid, as it often is. I guess I’m going to have to keep watching to find out.

Over the summer, I went with my friends to the movie theater. When the trailers began, I was excited to see what new films were going to come out in the next year. My excitement slowly dwindled with each passing trailer; none of the movies excited me, none of them looked good. I realized that practically every single trailer shown was for a remake of an older film, and the unoriginality made me apathetic, because I had already seen most of these films in another form. Three of the trailers were Disney live-action remakes, advertising The Legend of Tarzan, Pete’s Dragon, and Beauty and the Beast. All of these films seem unnecessary to me, yet people continue to be intrigued by the ideas of remakes, even if the films aren’t considered classics.

Pete’s Dragon is alarmingly grotesque to me, because it’s a remake of a movie that no one that I have ever met has cared about. I once saw it when I was a kid, and even my seven year-old self thought that the film wasn’t worth much. It’s possible Disney felt that the film needed to be revamped to look more realistic, but I think this new dragon still looks like a cartoon. Other people’s reactions to this revamp have either been apathy or complete disgust, I don’t know who would have interest in this movie, other than young boys, but Disney has always attempted to make content that the entire family would enjoy, not just something to put on your television to keep kids quiet for an hour and a half.

Subscribe now

If you think that Disney has made a lot of live-action remakes lately, that’s nothing in comparison to the 10+ films that they’re planning to remake into live-action versions in the coming years. Disney is planning on remaking The Little Mermaid, Mulan, Aladdin, The Sword in the Stone, and others into live-action films. I have trouble with this because I don’t see what needs to be revamped about most of these films. Mulan and Aladdin aren’t even old enough films that people are even nostalgic about them yet, they don’t need any revamping. These are possibly my two favorite Disney films, because the male and female leads are fun, interesting, and strong characters. They also have great songs, and really just do not need technological updates.

This is what bothers me about sequels and remakes. If I enjoy a movie, and a crappy sequel or remake comes afterwards, I appreciate the original less, because the sequel demonstrated that the creators of the films don’t actually care if their films are quality, or that the viewers enjoy them, but just that people will pay money to go see them.

Now, I don’t mean to convey that all of these sequels and remakes are just the result of whatever the studio could muster up, some of them, if not most of them, definitely appear to have actual thought and work put into them. Yet many just do not seem to understand what it is that their viewers really want in the movie. This is most obvious to me in the 2015 live action remake of Cinderella, which was first made in 1950. Cinderella adaptations have been made and remade so many times, I couldn’t possibly name them all. In each of these adaptations, the writers all try to improve the protagonist in order to make her a more active player in her own story. The 1950 film portrays Cinderella as passive, that her only characteristics are her kindness, and her beauty; Cinderella remakes often attempt to make their lead stronger in order to take a classic story and make it more progressive.

For example, the film Ever After (1998) was a historical fiction Cinderella story where the protagonist is an intellectual, well-read young woman. The protagonist, Danielle, proves her strength by posing as a noblewoman and buying back a servant friend. This demonstrates that she is clever, as well as moral, that she fights for the rights of those who cannot fight themselves. Because Danielle is a well-rounded character, she and Ever After are still remembered today.

In comparison, the Cinderella in Cinderella (2015) is as passive and boring as the 1950 version. She never argues with her stepmother, and when she’s locked away in the attack, she accepts her fate and does nothing. This is a step back for Disney, while they could have taken the time to make Cinderella stand out in some way, whether that be her intellect or her strength, they did neither, making the remake meaningless.

Although I find this regressive, many people enjoyed this movie because it was beautifully shot, the colors were vibrant, and the costumes were elegant and magical. I would have to agree, that this movie was beautiful, but it felt otherwise pointless. I would have preferred an original, well thought out story, that was also beautifully shot, rather than an unoriginal, fairly thoughtless remake of a story I’ve heard a thousand times.

Now, after watching the newest Beauty and the Beast trailer, I fear that Disney might be doing the same, in recreating an older classic, and only changing it by using creative special effects. At the same time, it appears that Disney has chosen to change Belle’s character in order to make her an inventor, rather than her father. This will give Belle more character, as well as a better reason for her to feel like an outsider in her own town. I don’t know if this change is enough to get me interested in the film, but I am intrigued that Disney is definitely trying to improve some flaws or plot holes from the original movie. This may not be enough to save it from being an otherwise pointless remake, but it proves that Disney is trying.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is a franchise of blockbuster films and television shows, all taking place within one universe modeled on Marvel comic books. The significance of the shared universe through its 8 year run has mostly been its ability to keep audiences engaged in a slew of characters by interweaving them through multiple films. If you liked Iron Man, and you liked Thor, then you’ll probably see The Avengers, because Thor and Iron Man are both in it! And did you like The Avengers? Then you should probably see Ant-Man, because The Avengers are mentioned several times.

Now, I recognize that by this point, if you don’t already care about this stuff, your eyes might have glazed over. You’re not interested in superheroes, you’re probably sick of people talking about “Easter Eggs” and “world building.” The reality is that making a piece of media that take places in the same universe as another piece of media is really only significant for people who care about that first piece of media, and that’s fine. The shared universe is a marketing strategy, albeit an effective one.

Luke Cage, however, uses this shared universe as a political and narrative tool.

Subscribe now

Now, Netflix’s new television show Luke Cage is a part of the MCU, and so it takes place in the same world as all of the big blockbusters. It is also more specifically a part of Marvel’s Netflix television universe, where all of the shows take place on the streets of New York City following the events of The Avengers. These Netflix shows have so far been some of the most inventive and complex superhero stories adapted from mainstream superhero comic books, which is why I was so excited about Luke Cage.

Luke Cage is a superhero show written by and starring a black man, and the show is incredibly conscious of this fact, devoting a significant amount of time to discussions of blackness and black masculinity within the context of superpowers. There is A LOT that we could talk about when we talk about Luke Cage, and a lot of other people already have. However, one of the amazing nuances of Luke Cage is its ability to use its focus on blackness, policing, and vigilantism to complicate the events and ideas at play in the broader MCU.

Marvel’s spring blockbuster, Captain America: Civil War, was the culmination of years of Marvel films which dealt, implicitly or explicitly, with questions of homeland security, foreign policy, vigilante behavior, and the ethical questions that arise from these themes. Tony Stark, beginning in The Avengers and culminating in Civil War, developed a belief in the importance of the security of America and of earth, after experiencing an alien invasion. Concurrently, Captain America’s path through the MCU led him to a deeply held belief in civil liberties and individual freedoms. The big question at play in Captain America: Civil War, but really the underlying question in most of the Marvel films is: should these people who are more powerful than humans be allowed to work outside the law?

The final scene of “Take It Personal,” the tenth episode of Luke Cage, begins with Mariah, played by Alfre Woodard on stage at Harlem’s Paradise, the club where she murdered her brother. Behind Mariah on the stage, large pictures of a bruised and wounded Lonnie, a teenaged black kid who was beaten up by cops looking for Luke Cage, hangs behind her. A crowd chants “This stops now!” The moment intends to evoke the political action that has taken place (for a very long time but also specifically within the last few years) surrounding the murder of black people by police officers.

Mariah is in this moment trying to kill many birds with one stone, framing Luke Cage for murder in order not only to get him out of her way, but also in order to secretly sell Luke-Cage-murdering bullets to the police. To achieve her goal, Mariah points out that “a cop was killed by this super-powered menace. And our young brother was hurt during their witch hunt.” In order to reframe Luke Cage as not a protector of, but a detriment to, the black community in Harlem, she places the faults of a corrupt and racist police system at his feet. “We got a bulletproof murderer on the loose in Harlem, with his own twisted sense of justice, putting us all in harm’s way.”

Luke Cage is a danger because he is a black man intent on enacting his and not the police’s moral code and who can’t easily be killed. Mariah is herself black and invested in black pride, and in order to mobilize the black community she makes the police brutality Luke’s fault. But of course it is not Luke’s fault. Mariah utilizes the fears of a black man with power to mobilize the community against vigilante superhero activity.

Ok, so remember how I said that the Netflix television world takes place after the events of the first Avengers? What that means is that Mariah’s speech in Luke Cage likely takes place several years before the discussion of superheroes as vigilantes reaches the white superhero community in Civil War. Before the humans of the MCU become afraid of white men with superhuman powers, they become afraid of black men with superhuman powers. Cheo Coker has used Luke Cage to retell the story of the MCU, to reveal to us that when people in the MCU tell us that “vigilantes are dangerous and must be kept in control,” they are really saying “black people like Luke Cage who are powerful and do not work within the legal system are dangerous.”

There is a scene towards the beginning of Civil War where a woman confronts Iron Man after a speech he makes at MIT celebrating human innovation. She tells him that her son died in the aftermath of a battle he fought against a sentient robot. Miriam, the woman, is not in the movie much, but her words to Tony Stark trigger his guilt over the danger his powers have put on innocent people’s lives, and act as a catalyst for the events of the film.

Miriam is played by Alfre Woodard, who also stars as Mariah on Luke Cage. There is no explicit suggestion in either Civil War or Luke Cage that Alfre Woodard is playing the same character. In fact, the screenwriters of Captain America: Civil War have said definitively that she is not (although this is very strange for the MCU and I suspect it might be a long-con). It doesn’t really matter though.

Even if it’s just a weird coincidence, it’s a coincidence with power, a coincidence that allows a story almost entirely concerning black men and women to at least seem to be central to a blockbuster franchise about white people. Luke Cage uses its place in the shared universe of the MCU to re-explain the fear of superpowers and vigilante behavior as fears of black men with superpowers who act outside the law.

2016 has been a shit year. Celebrity deaths, Brexit, the American election, and the rise of Harambe. It’s been awhile since we’ve collectively as a world felt the sting of such an unforgiving year. Luckily for us, 2016 is almost over. And the end of the year marks the release of The Hamilton Mixtape.

Now if you know me personally, you have undoubtedly been exposed to some form of Hamilton. But for those lucky few not in my social circle, or anyone avoiding anything pop culture-related, Hamilton is a rap musical that tells the story of America’s first treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton. Written and starring Lin Manuel Miranda, the musical is chock-full of drama: sexual exploits, deathly duels, and badass characters. And it’s all for the most part true. It’s also extremely popular and not about to end anytime soon. With a successful broadway run (whose past holiday weekend shows raked in over 3 million), the now up-and-running Chicago branch, and the touring San Francisco and London shows set to drop next year, the world is about to get way more of Hamilton.

The icing on the cake of course is The Hamilton Mixtape set to release this Friday. A remixed version of the musical, it includes various artists from Naz to Regina Spektor. Some songs have been in the works since the beginning, while others are artist remixes inspired by their viewing of the show. I myself have been inspired and months ago set out to create the ultimate Hamilton campion, compiling my own mixtape of Kanye West hits and ordering them accordingly to fit each musical numbers tone and overall theme.

I have dubbed it #West4Ham.

For those of you who don’t know, Yeezus himself attended the show where backstage Miranda revealed that Hamilton is in fact about him (shoutout to Heben Nigatu and Tracy Clayton of Buzzfeed’s Another Round for the incredible interview). Now there is a lot to be said about Kanye, especially concerning his most recent exploits. But that is a blog post for another day. So close your important emails, ignore all calls, and dim the lights, tonight I solve America’s greatest question:

What would a musical about America’s favorite orphaned immigrant told through the lens America’s ultimate problematic fave look like? The answer?

Something like this:

Subscribe now

Act 1

1. Alexander Hamilton // Who Will Survive In America

2. Aaron Burr, Sir // School Spirit

Reason: Aaron Burr, Sir underscores Alexander’s voice: ambitious, with an urge to prove himself to the world. Likewise, “School Spirit” is Kanye’s explanation of why he quit school, in his lyrics you can also hear Kanye’s budding style as he raps about his own desire for success.

3. My Shot // Champion

4. The Story Of Tonight // We Don’t Care

5. The Schuyler Sisters // Lift Off

Reason: Hamilton and ‘Ye share convoluted understandings of women. Both seem to vary between admiration and disgust at points, and both are drawn to the dichotomy of motherly virgin vs. temporus vixen, often putting women in either category (while at the same time recognizing the extremely powerful women in their own lives – i.e Hey Mama, ‘Ye references to Lauren Hill, and Hamilton’s love for both Eliza and Angelica- which is beyond frustrating). Because of this it was a struggle for me to find something that truly underlined the power of the Schuyler sisters that makes up their intro into this musical. I settled for “Lift Off”. Mostly because Beyonce is involved. If there is a conversation to be had about powerful women and how they shape history, it definitely includes Beyonce.

6. Farmer Refuted // FourFive Seconds

7. You’ll be Back // Famous

8. Right Hand Man // Welcome to the Jungle

Reason: In this song, Kanye and Jay contemplate both the frightening and enticing realities of fame. Like their rapping counterparts, both Hamilton and Washington had aspirations surrounding the wars effort. Where Washington sees the toll and risks (as Jay sees the death of famous rappers), Hamilton longs for the fight, ‘chasin’ that pain before it goes too far’.

9. A Winter’s Ball // N***** in Paris

10. Helpless // American Boy (ft. Kanye West)

Reason: Eliza left Alexander speechless. For a man whose entire career (and arguably his assent to founding fatherhood) hinged on his ability to work words, his awe of Eliza is by far the most shining example of his true devotion. Consequently Alexander left Eliza outspoken, not only in her devotion, but for matters she believed central. Helpless is an embodiment of the love they shared between them, and how words and their absence became the foundation for their interaction. “American Boy,” is a fun complement to that energy and tone.

11. Satisfied // Why I Love You

12. The Story of Tonight- Reprise // Good Life

13. Wait for it // Street Lights

14. Stay Alive // Murder to Excellence

15. Ten Duel Commandments // Jesus Walks

Reason: There are a lot of memorable songs in Hamilton, none more so than Ten Duel Commandments. With it’s quick and hard beats and rhythms Jesus Walks is a perfect compliment to Hamilton’s first taste of dueling.

16. Meet Me Inside // Big Brother

Reason: Kanye and Jay-Z have a complex history, and only getting more complicated. They work together, they’re friends (or were?), and the music they produced together has done more for the industry then we think. But relationships, professional and personal, are not without conflict. Similarly the relationship between Hamilton and Washington contained the same types of strains and difficulties. Hamilton never said a bad word outright about Washington, but in letters he often draws difference between the man and the divine figure people made him out to be. Nearing the end of the war, Washington and Hamilton’s differences came to a head and they briefly separated. Despite this riff, they both went on to form one of the most powerful working relationship that has shaped our nation. In “Big Brother,” Kanye lays out his feelings, and unmasks his and Jay-z’s relationship, looking at both his admiration and grievances. This is something powerful and rarely done amongst greats. It’s also such a Hamiltonian move.

17. That Would Be Enough // Only One

18. Guns and Ships // Stronger

19. History Has Its Eyes on You // Never Let Me Down

20. Yorktown (The World Turned upside Down) // Gone

Reason: The Kanye equivalent of America’s middle finger to King George

21. What Comes Next? // Cold

22. Dear Theodosia // New Day

Reason: Dear Theodosia is a song all about children and how the birth of United States of America was both a literal and metaphorical birth for a new moment in time. In New Day, Kanye and Jay (like Alexander and Burr) both rap to (at the time) their unborn sons, promising to be where their fathers were not.

23. Non-stop // Black Skinhead

Act 2

1. What Did I Miss // Otis

2. Cabinet Battle #1 // Monster (ft. Rick Ross, Jay-Z, Nicki Minaj)

3. Take A Break // Runaway

4. Say No To This // Gold Digger (ft. Jamie Foxx)

5. The Room Where it Happens // Power

6. Schuyler Defeated // Heartless

7. Cabinet Battle #2 // I Am A God

Reason: Hamilton’s Pre-Fuck Up, “time to fight Thomas Jefferson with words” Anthem

8. Washington On Your Side // Clique

Reason: Nothing like that 18th century political party forming to fuck up America’s political system forever

9. One Last Time // I’ll Fly Away

Reason: Kanye has always sampled hymns, and gospel music within his own art. “I’ll Fly Away” is a widely known gospel hymn that talks about the anticipation of one’s ascent to heaven. Hamilton and West both seem to exhibit complicated relationships with religion. Neither for or against, and finding and fighting religion at times, the the dynamic that sets up the paratext of One Last Time’s gospel undertones and I’ll Fly Away’s presence on West first solo album speaks volumes. As an added note, it’s interesting to find that Washington’s “going away” song feels like its own hymn, when Alexander had an equally complex relationship with Washington. #Brother/Father figure.

10. I Know Him // I Love Kanye

Reason: This song may be King George taking his time to talk about John Adams, but like Kanye, he too is drawn to himself.

11. The Adams Administration // No Church in The Wild

12. We Know // New Slaves

Reason: This song sounds like something bad is coming.

13. Hurricane // Amazing

Reason: As a honorary member of the self-sabotage club, I feel for Alexander. As an audience member capable of acknowledging foreshadowing, I cringe. One of the most fascinating aspects of Kanye West’s “Amazing” is it’s self aware examination of Kanye’s behavior, while being a declaration song of his own genius. Similar to Miranda’s “Hurricane,” it embodies the desperation of fighting your own self-made demons. If in “Hurricane” we are overcome by just how closely our hero is getting to the sun, “Amazing” describes the experience of watching him fall into the ocean’s depths.

14. The Reynolds Pamphlet // Hold my Liquor

15. Burn // Bad News

16. Blow Us All Away // Touch the Sky

17. Stay Alive- Reprise // All Of The Lights (Interlude)

Reason: *incoherent sobbing*

18. It’s Quiet Uptown // Waves

19. The Election of 1800 // Facts (Charlie Heat Version)

Reason: In the musical Alexander takes this song to give his detailed unwanted opinion, in his song Kanye takes a similar route.

20. Your Obedient Servant // Blame Game

Reason: One of the things so striking about Alexander and Burr’s fight is how easily it all could have been avoided. “Blame Game” captures Obedient Servants’ acknowledgement of how blinding anger, pride, and envy can be. Much of the musical is told through Burr narration, a man who takes us from his own present into a distant past that shaped our country. “Blame Game” is all about the acknowledgement of a fight’s pettiness but an inability to escape it.

21. Best of Wives and Best of Women // Lost in The World

22. The World Was Enough // Burr’s Part: FML Ham’s Part: Homecoming

23. Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story // Ultralight beam

Reason: To me Chance’s verse from Kanye West’s powerhouse opening to Life of Pablo is Eliza speaking out to the crowd in front of her. This is her part, nobody else speak. One of Hamilton’s most shining achievements to me is the enduring presence of women’s history and the ways in which our nation’s history owes itself to their courage and strength. Eliza literally ‘make(s) sure they go where they can’t go’ she fights, and writes, and lays down a foundation for the legacy we get to see on stage today. She’s our ultralight beam, glory to this woman who gave us so much and the man she thought worthy of her love.

Want more? Check out the original, Hamilton the Musical

Love mash-ups and still craving Hamilton? Check out #HAM4BEY

Haven’t heard Another Round?