Contemporary American Independent Film: From the Margins to the Mainstream

Edited by Chris Holmlund and Justin Wyatt
London and New York: Routledge, 2005

From Easy Rider to The Blair Witch Project, Contemporary American Independent Film is a comprehensive examination of the independent film scene consisting of seventeen essays from numerous film studies professors through out the country. Exploring the uneasy relationship between independent films and the major studios, the contributors trace the changing ideas and definitions of independent cinema, and the diversity of independent film practices.

They consider the ways in which indie films are marketed and distributed, and how new technologies such as video, cable and the internet, offered new opportunities for filmmakers to produce and market independent films.

Turning to the work of key auteurs such as John Sayles and Haile Gerima, contributors ask whether independent filmmakers can also be stars, and consider how indie features like Boys Don't Cry and Shopping for Fangs address issues of gender, sexuality and ethnicity normally avoided by Hollywood.

The collection of essays offers an unprecedented look at the scope of indie options and the field of indie controversies. Though each author is different in their approach, they seem to all feel passionately that how indies are defined, made, and shown makes a difference. They show great interest in the interface of economics, technology, aesthetics and ideology. The contributors, as well as the editor, Chris Holmlund, recognize that in a world dominated by Hollywood products, independents are necessarily in positions of dependence. Yet still, they write how creative imagination, determination and courage among filmmakers continue to be present.

Several of the contributors measure contemporary American indie features in light of indie traditions of early American features, experimental shorts, documentaries and foreign films. Several explore emerging new media or marketing. Others look at more mainstream work, although they mostly avoid analysis of films produced and released by mini-major studios. A number of the essays examine audiences, distinguishing them by gender, generation, sexual preference, ethnicity and race. Always concerned with audiences, as well as attitudes, all of the contributors weave together reflections on history with assessments of the present and speculations of the future.

Cinema of Outsiders: The Rise of American Independent Film

By Emanuel Levy
New York and London: New York University Press, 1999

Given American independent cinema’s rise to prominence over the past several decades, it is very fortunate to read a comprehensive account of the catalysts behind that rise, as well as an assessment of indie cinema’s effect on American film culture and its relationship to the mainstream Hollywood industry. Emanuel Levy’s Cinema of Outsiders can serve as a handy viewing guide for whoever aims to write such an account. Consisting primarily of critical reviews of independent films, Cinema of Outsiders engagingly assesses the extensive range of work in American independent cinema since the late 1970s. Unfortunately, this text covers a lot of critical ground without digging very deeply into it, leaving crucial questions unexplored, but giving a sturdy stepping stone for film fanatics looking to answer those crucial questions on their own.

The introduction, conclusion and first two chapters are the most satisfying sections of the book. The introduction opens in a logical place by addressing how difficult it is to establish a clear definition for contemporary independent cinema. Here Levy identifies the two main factors he feels are essential to such a definition: financing and artistic vision. In Levy’s view, as the book title indicates, independent cinema is founded upon the films of “outsiders,” nonconforming writers and directors not willing to compromise their personal visions in exchange for mainstream studio financing.

The first chapter extends Levy’s attempts at definition by exploring ten forces that have affected the development of independent cinema. This chapter is therefore a useful sketch of methods within both the indie scene and the world of Hollywood have shaped independent cinema. Throughout these opening sections and in the conclusion, Levy repeatedly considers the difficulties in determining the industrial and aesthetic dividing lines between mainstream Hollywood and the independent film world. Yet all Levy does here is indeed “observe” these issues, rarely analyzing them in any detail, and largely not returning to them until the conclusion.

Primarily the book consists of critical assessments of individual films and filmmakers, and Levy provides little sense of how each filmmaker relates to the issues raised in the opening sections of the book. Such editorial comments provide the main attraction of these chapters, as Levy copiously exercises the skills that served him as a film critic for Variety Magazine.

In sum, readers looking for a sharply written abridgment of independent film reviews will be well served by Cinema of Outsiders. But for those looking for more, the book too frequently raises intriguing issues that it then neglects. For instance, Levy opens the “Female/Feminist Sensibility” chapter with the following questions: “Is there a distinctly female sensibility in indie narratives written and directed by women? Are new meanings established? Do women-directed indies address their audiences in different ways?” (348-349). Unfortunately, he never approaches solid answers to these questions in the chapter’s subsequent film reviews. As such, while the reader gains a good sense of the artistic merits and drawbacks of many independent films through reading the book, Levy never satisfactorily makes clear what all of these films add up to, however, he does leave the questions open to the astute film savvy reader for answering.

The Funny Celluloids

Next to noir, comedy is the genre that most excites new indie directors. As in other genres, indie comedy and satire has built upon the work of influential directors: Robert Altman, George Lucas, and Barry Levinson. Quintessential films, such as Altman’s M.A.S.H., Lucas’s American Graffiti, and Levinson’s Diner, have all left a particularly strong mark on indie comedies on the past several decades.


Indie comedies have differed radically from those produced by Hollywood. Mainstream comedies of the 1980s were largely defined by Ivan Reitman, who has shown a knack for commercially viable material. After scoring box-office hits as the co producer of National Lampoon’s Animal House (1978), and the director of Meatballs (1979), Reitman launched a spectacular Hollywood career, capped by the quirky blockbuster, Ghostbusters (1984). When Reitman made Legal Eagles (1986), critics praised his foray into adult comedy, yet the film was still a teenage comedy in feeling, although one populated by adult characters.


American comedies of recent years have been mechanical retreads of old formulas. Filmmakers seem unable to recognize that it’s hard to make screwball comedy these days when the social norms and manners that gave rise to those cinematic conventions no longer exist.

Most American comedies are so broad they are about nothing- take for example a couple of Jim Carrey’s films, Ace Ventura...and its sequel. The distinct sensibility that that permeated American comedy of the 1970s, in the works of Woody Allen, Mike Nichols, and Paul Mazursky, no longer exists. Woody Allen has retained his strength as an inventive comedy director, but he has lost his broad base and now works as a niche filmmaker supported by a small audience.


The work of gifted indie directors has tapped into the zeitgeist, armed with topicality and point of view that defy the mass-marketing approach. Christopher Guest’s style of mockumentary and improvisation, Kevin Smith’s verbal gyrations among the twentysomethings, David O. Russell’s neo-Woody Allen, neurotic tinged comedies, and Alexander Payne’s political satire are all examples of this. Successfully pitching comedies to studios seems like it must be harder than ever, because the conglomerate nature of studios. Studies seem seduced by expensive projects to the point where it sounds like a disgrace to make a movie for only $2 million.

Let’s get back to the character based comedies of the 1970s please.

….and thank you.


Woody Allen

The Brothers Noir

Arguably no indie filmmaker has benefited or exploited the noir tradition more effectively and thoroughly than Joel and Ethan Coen. The Coen brothers are one of the most creative pairings on the contemporary scene. Unconventional and arcane, they have maintained artistic control through writing, directing, producing, and even some times editing their movies. They form a unified team, with their individual contributions so intertwined that no one can say precisely who did what (Usually Joel directs, Ethan produces and they both write.). With fourteen films to their credit, including Blood Simple (1985), Miller’s Crossing (1990), Barton Fink (1991), The Man Who Wasn't There (2001), and the Oscar winning No Country for Old Men (2007), the Coens have created a world that doesn’t look like anybody else’s.


The Coen’s commercial successes, Raising Arizona (1987), and Fargo (1996), are set in recognizable worlds inhabited by more or less ordinary characters. The rest take place in the stylized noir tradition (Blood Simple), remote gangster lands (Miller’s Crossing), or abstract studio sets (The Hudsucker Proxy). As formalist filmmakers, the Coens have pushed Hollywood conventions to the point of absurdity. Like those of many filmmakers, their ideas were formed by pop culture, which means that their work is self conscious. Each of their films pay homage to a classic Hollywood genre, with a knowingness born of numerous hours spent in the dark. Simply, the Coens are clever directors who know too much about movies.


The only shallowness of their work is a result of their creating sealed universes that have few references outside the world of cinema. It would appear that the Coens believe linking form and content is irrelevant, that brilliant style will somehow lure viewers into uncritical acceptance of their schemes (Which works). Their films are both unique and derivative, displaying dazzling camera techniques, meticulously conceived scenes, elaborate set pieces, brilliant production design and smart dialogue.


The Coens, not their characters or the actors who play them, are the stars of their movies. Unlike Tarantino, who puts his performers center stage, the Coens pull the audience away from the actors and showcase their talent.


From the beginning it was the Coen’s self knowingness that endeared them to high-brow critics and sophisticated audiences. Box-office failures like Miller’s Crossing and Barton Fink would have ruined most filmmakers, but in the Coen’s case, they have managed to increase their stature as supreme filmmakers.


The Coen’s work, like the arty Miller’s Crossing, or the desolate styled Barton Fink, feels sealed off and motionless. But this doesn’t mean their work is devoid of serious themes or ideas: Hysterical individualism, often translating into greed, runs through most of their films, creating underlining premises often overlooked.


MILLER'S CROSSING TRAILER

The Smithonian Universe

Kevin Smith has been called “The King of Gen-X Cinema," a label he surely embraces with joy. A satirist who writes skillfully but lacks any sense of visual style, Smith has made a strong case for attending film school, if only to acquire some technical skills. Clerks (1994), a savage assault of convenience-store culture, put on screen the loves and ambitions of two cash register hockey nuts. Raggedy and vulgar, a studio made Mall Rats (1995), which takes aim at the shopping mall “subculture.” It was a sophomore jinx, flat and not very funny. The sex-comedy Chasing Amy (1997) represented a return to form but again showed that Smith is a rough filmmaker with limited understanding of the medium’s possibilities.


The son of a postal clerk in Highlands New Jersey, Smith set his sights on becoming a screenwriter after dropping out of college. He switched gears and headed to Vancouver to where he would spend four months in film school until deciding to invest the rest of his tuition into making a movie. Shot after business hours in three weeks at the Quick Stop where Smith used to work, Clerks was made for a mere $27,575.


The anti-hero, Dante Hicks, plans to sleep late, play hockey, and enjoy his day off, but, instead he gets called in to the Quick Stop and is stranded when his boss never shows up to relieve him. He’s forced to listen to tales of lung cancer from customers and is later devastated by the wedding announcement of Caitlin, the high school sweetheart he can’t forget. Shocked by the sexual revelations of his girlfriend, Veronica, he blusters, “You sucked thirty-six dicks? Does that include me?” “Thirty-seven,” she calmly responds.


Dante quips that his job would be great if “it wasn’t for all the customers.” Randal, Dante’s reckless counterpart at the adjoining video store also insults customers. Together they philosophize the Star Wars Trilogy. They theorize that The Empire Strikes Back ended on a down note, and that’s all that life is, a series of down notes.


Shot in grainy black and white, Clerks is cast with beginners and the script dogpiles absurdity and obscenity on top of each other. The dullness of dead-end jobs is brightened with odd bits- a fat guy asks for softer toilet paper and then dies on the toilet. When Dante and Randall run out to attend the funereal, Randall tips over the casket. By the end of the day the Quick Stop lies in ruins.


After premiering at Sundance, where Clerks won the Filmmakers Trophy, Smith barnstormed around the global film circuit, gathering acclaim for the film and quickly getting picked up by Miramax.


Although still somewhat considered a new filmmaker, Smith hails more mainstream aspirations. Mainstream hopes don’t sound too surprising from someone who avoids drugs, attends church and loves the family life. Smith grew up “talking about sex, but not having it,” which explains why his movies are raunchy, anticlerical, and sexually glitzy.


Politics

Indies From Venus

In the winter of 2000, another “Year of the Woman” was proclaimed in the independent film scene. Reporters had either forgotten or had never known that the Sundance Film Festival had already celebrated the year of the woman in 1989, 1991 and 1993. So for trade journalists, Sundance had hit a major milestone with its notable jump in female participants, 40 percent of the candidates in the festival’s dramatic competition were female, up from 20 percent in the previous eight years. And a woman, Karyn Kusama won the Grand Jury Prize for her film, Girlfight (2000), a feminist version of Rocky, which featured a working-class teenage girl’s entrance into the amateur boxing ring. Kusama, who had financed the $1 million film through her previous employer John Sayles and the Independent Film Channel, sold Girlfight to Sony for $3 million.


Around that same time, Kimberly Peirce enjoyed the success of Boys Don’t Cry (1999). A dramatic treatment of the rape and murder of Brandon Teena, a teenaged girl passing as a boy in Falls City, Iowa. This debut film gathered critical acclaim at festivals in Toronto, Venice, London and New York just to name a few. Boys Don’t Cry won several highly coveted Independent Spirit Awards as well as an Oscar and a Golden Globe Award for Hilary Swank’s performance as Brandon. A $2 million film, it eventually made $11.5 million in domestic box office.


The success of Kusama and Peirce’s indie debuts had a good deal to do with casting, which is not to devalue their writing and screen direction, but for Girfight a publicity campaign was developed around newcomer actress Michelle Rodriguez who possessed little experience in either acting or boxing. For Boys Don’t Cry, Hilary Swank’s status as a Beverly Hills 90210 starlet turned method actor provided immediate attention. In addition to casting, these films generated a high-concept type of ‘hook’ that heightened their marketability.

The visibility of Kusama and Peirce’s debuts would seem to set them up for enduring careers in independent film. The experiences of women directors who came before them indicate, however, that the odds would not favor Peirce or Kusama.


The problem is that women who attempt to establish careers in an independent world now dominated by mini-major studios often hit a plateau after their first film. Since Girlfight Kusama has director one major flop, Aeon Flux, and a couple Episodes of Showtime’s The L Word. Peirce also has struggled post Boys Don’t Cry and in a decade has directed only one film, Stoploss, and like Kusama worked on an episode of The L Word.


Studios have squeezed out avant-garde film and documentaries, but what of women who decide to direct the narrative features so valued by major film festivals? What precisely are the hurdles for women filmmakers? What strategies of empowerment are indie women directors crafting in the narrowly circumscribed business of cinema?

Zowie Bowie

A small, personal story wrapped in the trappings of classic Sci-Fi epic, Moon manages to be both derivative (most notably, of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001(1968), but with only a touch of that film’s monumental pessimism) and deliberately rebellious in its treatment of Sci-Fi euphemisms. Moving through familiar territory and yet sparked with a spirit all its own, like any great work of genre cinema Moon’s future-world scenario and super-slick techno-artistry are put to the service of a story that ultimately downplays the traumas wrought by technological possibility in order to dig deep into the traumas of people being people.


The film, directed by first time director Duncan Jones (once known as Zowie Bowie, son of Sir David Bowie), begins with a pitch-perfect advertisement for the company that contracts an astronaut named Sam (Sam Rockwell) to live and work on a space station on the Earth’s Moon for a three year stretch, accompanied only by a HAL-meets-Johnny Five (2001 and Short Circuit [1986]) robot named Gerty (voiced by Kevin Spacey), and able to communicate with his wife and child on Earth only via taped video message.


Shot within a grueling 33 days on a fair budget in regards to indie films ($5 million), but on an incredibly low budget in reference to mass market Sci-Fi pictures (Independence Day (1996) -$75 million), Moon relies on a major twist that would be criminal to reveal. Suffice it to say that Sam is at once not as alone as he thought he was, and as fundamentally lonely as anyone could ever be. This dramatization of Sam’s sudden, tragic self-awareness gives Rockwell a platform for a terrifically exciting dual performance which, thanks to over 450 seamless, non-showy effects, and a magic of chemistry, works magnificently.


What marks Moon as a potential Sci-Fi game changer is the complexity of its philosophy on The Future, one which allows for both limitless faith in human feeling and skepticism over the human cost of innovation, particularly in regards to Saving the Planet. 2001 predicts that the more human-like machines become, the more they’ll take on the worst of humanity and, as an added bonus, that humans will lose the passion and compassion that makes them human in direct proportion to the degree to which they engineer machines to become more human-like. Moon approaches a similar scenario from a very different angle, imagining that the artificial intelligence that humans create will embody the best of what humanity can be, but will probably be used to the ends of, if not evil, than at least the individual-indifferent banality that keeps a capitalist society ticking along.


“I took common Sci-Fi illusions and assumptions that people make and changed that in the course of the film” said director Duncan Jones at the San Francisco International Film Festival, detailing his film’s “inverted common trend of technological mistrust in Sci-fi.” He described in a question answer session after his film was shown that the all encompassing aspect of Sci-Fi film is “telling human stories but having the world be Sci-Fi, because then the environment makes us see the characters in different ways we wouldn’t look at before. In other words, Sci-Fi can be intelligent and smart, but also very simple; the stories are the baggage that humans bring to create trauma.



Moon Trailer

Welcome to Tromaville

Working under the slogan of “Movies of The Future,” Troma Entertainment, founded by Lloyd Kaufman and Michael Herz, has been producing and distributing low-budget films since 1974. One of the longest surviving American independent film studios, it has been a catalyst of do-it-yourself guerrilla filmmaking that has created the trademark “Troma Library.” There are essentially two types of Troma films, those produced, and those purchased, which make up the smorgasbord of psychopathic and surreal movies within the library. The trashy aesthetic and genre mutation (and character mutants) are what identify a Troma release, which boast such provocatively titled films like, Rabid Grannies (1988), Killer Condom (1997), Surf Nazis Must Die (1987) and the beloved Cannibal: The Musical (1996), the first film project for South Park creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

The films that have been the most commercially successful and revered by followers of the studio have been Troma’s own productions, Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D. (1993), Tromeo and Juliet (1996) and in particular, The Toxic Avenger series (1984-2001 [four parts]). The Toxic Avenger, also known as Toxie, is a fighter of crime, a mutant superhero, who employs excessive violence to defeat evil and restore community harmony. The films effectively establish the transparent values of the Troma ‘Universe’, which long time producer and director of the original Little Shop of Horrors (1960), Roger Corman, once described as “extreme yet idealistic, violent, yet romantic.”

The studio first established itself with sex comedies in the late 70s, and then after the success of the first Toxic Avenger (1984) Troma moved toward making films packed full of nudity, gore, and comic book violence. What has subsequently categorized Troma as a neo-independent studio is the various ways in which they have attempted to market a body of films which are practically all discredited by critics. The films are counter-aesthetic and are in full opposition to the institutions of Hollywood interest and popular taste.

The Toxic Avenger series is best described as a jumble of Peter Jackson’s style of slapstick horror, the absurdity of South Park, the physical comedy of the Three Stooges, the inventive murders of 1980 slasher films and the cheesy spoofing of film moments perfected by David Zucker in movies like Airplane! (1980).

Residing largely in isolation, main character, Toxie, always remains the friendly neighbor and a model citizen. His body might signify chemical pollution, but Toxie is still essentially law-abiding and clean-living. Within “Tromaville,” Toxie works with the blind, helps elderly folks cross the street, and even more mundanely helps a housewife open a tight jar lid. Tromaville’s streets and park are populated by the old and the young, illustrating community equality. Toxie can walk freely through Tromaville despite his gruesome appearance.

The citizens of Tromaville are repeatedly seen moving through the community, dancing in groups, enjoying leisure time walking dogs and taking picnics. Horse carriages are an optional and utmost optimal mode of transport, and well-behaved children bike and play in the streets free from passing traffic, all the while eating an endless supply of ice cream. But industrial capitalism, political greed, corporate, and gangs constantly threaten Tromaville’s utopia. Such counter-communitarian behavior challenges the moral rights of the community and puts Toxie in charge of saving the neighborhood.

The common silly and rude nature of Troma’s own productions disguises the extent of its social and political philosophies, and of those within Tromaville, the fictitious community built with the values of the studio. It is crazy that an independent producer of low-budget exploitation films should incorporate such ideologies into its productions. Troma’s communitarian logic is, however, not without its complications. Toxie’s acts of violence are part of his fight for community justice, yet they are clearly unethical, and contradicting of communitarian values, which have lead many critics to challenging the studio’s cultural worth. While Troma’s form of commentary is far from complete, it is not without moments of irony and eccentric oddity.


Troma fights the big pictures!!!
VERY GRAPHIC

Marty

Uncompromisingly, Martin Scorsese is arguably the most brilliant filmmaker working in American film today. Over the past 40 years, Scorsese has directed an impressive canon of innovative and controversial independent (and big budget) films that clearly stand as some of the best Indies/films of all time, and at the time of their release thru to the present have clearly laid the groundwork for succeeding filmmakers. He combines a film enthusiast’s passion for film noir with an appreciation of rich characterization and a hint of place and time. Scorsese’s impressive, and yet erratic, career has been emulated by young indie directors. His intoxicating take of the film medium is most apparent in the work of Quentin Tarantino (Reservoir Dogs), Nick Gomez (The Sopranos), and Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood).

Scorsese’s films display such talent with their dazzling camera work, jump cuts, and vivid framing that the filmmaking alone becomes a subject of his movies. His style is marked by a restless, jittery camera that in his best films reflect the tension of city life, a topic that found the most expression in Taxi Driver (1976).

An epic street opera, Taxi Driver centers on Travis Bickle (Robert Dinero), a Vietnam vet turned psychotic vigilante fighting against New York city’s scum, pimps, muggers, junkies and of course, politicians. The film generated controversy because of its bloody finale which was a long sequence of carnage involving a 12 year-old prostitute played by a young Jodi Foster.

In Scorsese’s next film and arguably finest film, Raging Bull (1980), he chose black-and-white cinematography to lend barren realism and intensity to the story of boxing champion, Jake La Motta, who rose from the dirt to the height of boxing, only to be destroyed by his own paranoia and personal vices.

Scorsese’s films are rooted in his Italian-American Catholic upbringing and confront themes of sin, guilt and justice. His explorations of male camaraderie, violent behavior, and definitely man’s deep fear of women have left significant footprints on the works of many directors. Scorsese places certain women, like mothers, on a pedestal to be revered, but more women in his films are depicted as being deceitful whores. Prostitutes are abound in Taxi Driver, and in Raging Bull, La Motta asks his brother to keep an eye on his wife for him, implying that given the chance, all women cheat on their husbands.

Based in New York, Scorsese has largely worked outside the establishment, pursuing his own path, (though often with Hollywood money) by making personal movies such as The Last Temptation of Christ. Scorsese has attained a goal of authorship more fully than other directors because of his high artistic quality. He may be one of the few directors left who still passionately cares about film.

Remember that Controversial scene in Taxi Driver I mentioned?
BOO-YA!!!



Unofficial Website of Martin Scorsese

The Indie King Makes Movies Too!!!

A serio-comedy about a do-well barfly, “Indie King” Steve Buscemi’s, Trees Lounge (1997), is an apologetic look at the petty feuds and uneventful existence of working-class people in a New York suburb. The film’s greatest virtue is Buscemi’s thorough knowledge of the characters because of the autobiographical nature of the story. Trees Lounge is a projection of what life might have been had Buscemi never left Valley Stream, Long Island, to pursue an acting career.

At age 31, Tommy (Buscemi) is a loser who is described by his own friends as a screw-up. Tommy is fired from his job as an auto mechanic after “borrowing” money without informing his boss. Tommy’s former girlfriend, who may or may not be pregnant with his child, has moved in with his angry former boss. Living in a tiny apartment above a bar, Tommy has no money to fix his car or to buy drinks. Further complicating life is Debbie, an adolescent with a crush on Tommy. Temptation overcomes Tommy, and after an ill-advised night together Debbie’s hotheaded father is infuriated.

Epitomizing the middle-class locale is the neighborhood bar, Trees Lounge, in which neither the décor nor the jukebox songs have changed in years. Spending his time hustling drinks and engaging in one-night stands, Tommy gets kicked out of the place for bad behavior. At a crossroads in the film, Tommy realizes that he is young enough to break out and make something of his life. If he doesn’t, he can see his future down at the other end of the bar, where the old salty dog regular, Bill, drinks himself to death.

Neither the comic nor the melodramatic elements are punched up and over done. Buscemi roots his film in characterization and acting, with the humor stemming directly from the characters. Without forcing a dramatic structure or an obvious climax, Buscemi conveys the dead-end nature of aimless lives. He refrains from giving his film the self-conscious hipness typical of the indie pictures in which he has so often appeared just as an actor.

Buscemi handles the material with casualness, so his characters are not caught up in a big dramatic crisis, but instead they get engulfed with petty quarrels. Trees Lounge boasts a cast of indie staples like Samuel L. Jackson, Mimi Rogers and Chloe Sevingy. Above all it’s Buscemi’s triumph as an actor that makes Tommy both pathetic and sympathetic. In the film Buscemi successfully transfers his cheerless character and sensibility to a bar that is a cave for losers. Trees Lounge shows how the young and restless Tommy struggles to distinguish himself from the drinking community. Despite its grim subject, the film is rambunctious. The drinkers are funny, each one of them with an ego to defend, and the film serves as a testimonial of the valor of failure.

Avant-Garde Binge

Critics have argued that in Avant-Garde and post modern film there is an emphasis on style over substance, a consumption of images for their own sake rather than for their usefulness or the values they symbolize, a preoccupation with playfulness and inside jokes at the expense of meaning. Even in big Hollywood movies like Zach Snyder’s depiction of Alan Moore’s world renowned graphic novel, The Watchmen (2009), we see fashion over content. As a result qualities like integrity, coherence, seriousness, authenticity and intellectual depth are undermined. Indie films, as well as some Hollywood pictures have destabilized cinema from within by challenging audiences’ expectations of narrative and visual representation.

Avant-Garde director, Jon Jost, is a ruggedly independent filmmaker who unlike most of his contemporaries exhibits a voice that is uncompromisingly personal. Self-taught, Jost has made his films as cheaply as possible. Though he has been directing for over 30 years, only a few of his works have had theatrical releases.

In an article published in Film Comment Jost writes that he has always worked “small.” “My entire career has been mounted on a fiscal sum- less than $500,000- that in LA would scarcely be imagined suitable for an episode of a lame half-hour sitcom.” Jost later in his article writes, “The thought that there might be virtue in modesty, that having a crew of just two or three might actually have its benefits- and not merely fiscal- is perceived lunacy…is to point out the obvious and the tragic.” The obvious and the tragic being that big production, big money and big promotion have nothing to do with art or human values.

Jost’s movies are mostly about losers. The kind of protagonists considered unappealing by mainstream standards. His repertoire consists of three kinds of film according to film annalist, Emanuel Levy; essays, Westerns, and urbans. His essays include Speaking Directly: Some American Notes (1973), which deals with the intersection of the personal and the political of American involvement of the Vietnam War. Last Chance for a Slow Dance (1977), Slow Moves (1983) and Sure Fire (1988-1990) are among Jost’s Westerns. His westerns examine the teetering generation of cowboys after the frontier and the decline of honor at this time. The characters go on long drives through barren landscapes and the only emotion they have left is rage, which often results in violent and seemingly pointless deaths.

His urban films like All the Vermeer’s in New York (1992) incorporate the lyrical camera of Jost’s essays and the violence of his Westerns together, creating a poignant story of discrepancies between art and spiritual decay. Like all of Jost’s films, he explores the boundaries between narrative and experimental cinema. He presents worlds that are both beautiful and decadent, calm on the surface, but riddled with anxiety.

Like Jost, filmmaker David Lynch is dedicated to explaining the violent nature of American life, but unlike Jost, Lynch has the ability to transform scary nightmares into pleasurable sensations, like the infamous dinner scene from Lynch’s breakthrough film, Eraserhead (1977).


From the very beginning, viewers of a Lynch film expect to be shaken up, to be astonished by the tension, mood and sensation in his work. This is very likely the reason why the term “Lynchian” has become a catchphrase of all other cinematic deviations somewhat like his style. Lynch’s creativity manifests itself through a disconnected series of images and moods. “Cinema is a language that can say abstractions,” Lynch said in a June of 2007 lecture. In that lecture he explained that sometimes even he doesn’t know what’s going on in his films, but that “Intuition and knowingness” of the individual are all that matter. People can interpret things an infinite number of ways, and Lynch says that “You know for yourself what an idea in a films means, and what you know for yourself is valid.”

Thus is the gist of Avant-Garde independent film. A provocative thought or image that suggests nothing in life is fixed and that everything is relative. A surreal search beyond logic and beyond narrative of perversity, violence and frivolity.

Defining Independent

In today's market, where the success of a film is defined by dollar signs, independent production companies such as Miramax seem to operate as mini-studios, churning out populist fare like SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE and THE ENGLISH PATIENT. Nothing wrong with that, really, as long as we call a spade a spade. Are the above referenced films truly distinguishable as independent?

What are the parameters of an independent film? Is it merely the financial constraint of finding money from independent sources? Does it have to do with having a singular independent vision?

It's an easy word to throw around, but not so simple to define.

Wikipedia claims that “Independent films today are generally defined as American films financed and distributed by sources outside today's Big Six [major film studios] and its subsidiaries.” Are financial support and distribution the only determinant factors as to whether a film should be classified as indie or not?

If so, then why is it possible for films, like Juno and Little Miss Sunshine, to be called independent?

In the past, the tag, “independent” was applied to low budget pictures that played for a week in some local art house theatre. Referring to non-studio, low-budget movies, distributed by a nonconformist company, the label had clear meaning. In the 1990s, however, things changed. The former mavericks of the film world were no longer independents. Disney bought Miramax, Universal bought October (eventually morphing into Focus Features,) Turner/Time Warner bought New Line, Vestron was swallowed up by Lion's Gate, and on and on. Stemming from this, indies’ budgets increased to as much as $50 million.

Two different conceptions of independent film can be found. One is based on the way a film is financed, the other focuses on the spirit of the picture or the artistic vision of the creators. According to the first view, any film financed outside of Hollywood is independent. The second suggests that it is fresh perspective, imaginative will and personal vision that are the determining factor.

Brad Krevoy, the producer of 90s comedies DUMB AND DUMBER and KINGPIN says that “the studios, with their hordes of executives going through every page of the script and telling a director what to do, are the antithesis of a pure independent, who basically executes his particular vision.”

When a filmmaker says that he or she is independent, the most important thing is that they do not let anyone beat them into a pulp and force them to make a movie that a financer wants. “It’s a more iconoclastic filmmaking without the burden of attempting to make $100 million at the box-office,” says Emanuel Levy, writer of “Cinema of Outsiders: The Rise of American Independent Film.”

Independent has become a label that makes it easy for people to analyze things that are a lot more complicated. The independent spirit is trying to rely on as few outside sources and controls as possible. For many the term “independent” conjures up visions of ambitious directors working with little money and no commercial promises. Ideally, an indie is a fresh low-budget movie with a gritty style and offbeat subject matter that expresses the filmmaker’s mindset and vision. However, in today’s market the lines have blurred with popular Hollywood, creating what some call, “indiewood,” a hybrid of the imaginative creators with all the innovative ideas and the big market with all the deep pockets.

Cover Letter

Nick Kirschner
Persuasion
Bammert
Winter 2009

How to Not Get Hit By Cars
A Cyclists’ Guide


GENRE:
A brochure

PUBLICATION:
This brochure is for the commuting and everyday cyclist to help him/her avoid dangerous collisions with automotives. The brochure will be distributed at local area bike shops and cycling events such as the annual Bike Swap.

AUDIENCE:
At bike shops I expect to encounter all different types of cyclists, from the kind that ride 30-70 miles a day to the kids that are just getting their training wheels taken off. All cyclists that ride in the road are at a constant risk of being hit by motorists, and they need to be properly educated about proper techniques that can save their lives.

BRIEF ANALYSIS:
There is a definite bike v. car mentality out there, and despite all the bickering and proposed legislation, the fact that cars are always going to win in a crash is undeniable. We’re talking two tons against maybe 200lbs; the odds are always going to favor the gas-burning hunk of metal. The best thing that cyclists can do is take into account that in order to serve their best interest and to avoid serious injury they must take the responsibility of remaining safe among the adversity of cars. Motorists are often not cognizant of cyclists, especially when exiting their car, or at intersections. Yes, they should be more alert and should be able to spot a bike rider and evade accidents, but this is not the case. Put simply, car drivers just don’t see us out there. We can tell them to be more attentive over and over again but there is just no guarantee that it’s ever going to stick. That’s why we need to protect ourselves by being smarter on the roads. This brochure gives easy tips to cyclists on ways to circumvent the most commonly seen accidents between cars and bikes. The information provided in this pamphlet when applied to your everyday riding will greatly develop your safety methods and make you a more responsive rider.

WORKS CONSULTED/CITED:
http://www.bicyclesafety.com-/ Provided Images
www.helmets.org/stats.htm
www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

Imagery

As a strong proponent of free speech I believe that images of all kind should be used to their fullest extent to sway opinion. It is the public's job to interprete images and decide whether or not they are appropriate based on their own values. Images like the ones distributed by PETA can easily be avoided just by hitting the stop button on the video's browser, or by typing in a different web address. No one is being held down and forced to watch these ads, and as long as it remains that way, let people create whatever type of commercial with whatever type of pictures, videos or illustrations they want.

Seriously, if we ask PETA to cut back their lynch-mob antics, then we'll lose faildogs.com

Cycling Editorial

Every morning Lucas Boyle rides his 1989 Bianchi road bike to Seattle University campus in pursuit of his Fine Arts Degree. On the morning on Tuesday January 27th, as Lucas was coasting in the bike lane on 12th Ave, which runs parallel to the University, a forrest green 2007 Range Rover took a right hand turn directly into Lucas' path. The vehicle had not signaled and Lucas had no time to dodge the collision. The impact launched Lucas over his handlebars, ricocheting him off the hood of the car and then down to the pavement, cutting his elbow and cracking his helmet. As Lucas lied on the concrete grimacing in pain, the driver of the vehicle rolled down the window of his car only halfway and asked, "You gonna be alright?"

Instances like this are riddling the streets of Seattle, and because there has been an influx of bicycle popularity in recent years, bike v. car accidents will continue to grow. As both a cyclist and a motorist I've been able to witness both sides of the debate. Yes, it gets frustrating when you're drving and are stuck behind a slow traveling cyclist on University Way., but at the same time, being hit by a car making an illegal u-turn while on a bike is far more aggrovating, and physically painful.

Just the other day I was biking down 45th ave NE in the U-District and a group of young men in a electric blue Jetta drove up next next to me and yelled, "Biking is gay you fag!" They then proceeded to try and run me off the road. When will this maddness stop? This misguided connotation toward bikers is obviously ignorant and outrageous and does nothing but fuel the cyclist v. motorist dilemma which is dangerous for all users of the roads. If cyclists continue to get acosted by drivers then don't expect this issue to improve any time soon.

Mama!

In regards to the two articles read and discussed in class an examination of what constitutes a responsibile mother must be investigated. Is it considered to be responsible to for a mother to enlist and therefore put themself in harms way day after day while the'yre child is back at home? Does it make things more acceptable if there is a father looking after that child? Also, we have to ask, is it responsible for a woman on disability and food stamps to have eight more children when she already has six?

A tricky aspect of this debate however is the pitfalls of female marginalization. to say that if a woman joins the military she should give up her right to bear children is a pretty bold statement and there will be a backlash. furthermore, to imply that men have more of a right to father children but at the same time fight wars on the other side of the world would also stir up controversey.

Either way, a woman in the military must accept that she is putting not only her life at risk, but her child's, and that if she decided on joining the military, she has to realize what she has done and that that life choice means that she is responsible to her country more than anything else, including being a parent. I personally despise the military, so I am not viewing this with a right wing/conservative bias, I'm just being realistic about the government's "machine" that people cannot just play with or leech off of whenever they please.


In regards to the Octomom, this is about as irresponsible as it gets. She was offered full childcare for free but turned it town because she wants to go on a reality show and that would breach the contrat. A responsible mother, on welfare or not, puts her children before fame.

Grant Writing

Cyclists is every city are constantly being threatened by motorists that follow too closely, pass unsafely, or blatantly disregard a bike riders existence whether intentionally or on accident. In order to make the city of Seattle a safer place for cyclists we need to encourage people to get out of their cars and ride bikes. Not only would less decongest the city streets, but it would also provide a cleaner environment for residence after drastically cutting down exhaust levels created by vehicles. 

The implementing of more bike lanes would provide cyclists with safer routes and could then encourage others to give up the car for a bike. right now, there are bike riders in Seattle that still do not commute to work because they feel unsafe on the roads because of reckless drivers. By creating a environment that first makes all cyclists confident enough to ride, then motorists will see the advantages of bike riding. It will become apparent to them that cycling is more healthy, fast, and pretty darn fun. 

Dear Mr. and Mrs. CLIF BAR,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Neverland Ranch Bike Coalition. We are a community of cyclists in the north Seattle area that commute to work and/or school everyday, rain, shine, and this winter, even snow. We've found in our daily bike rides that Seattle's roads are unsafe for cyclists and every day we commute with fear.

We are attempting to implement putting a bike lane beginning at 15ave Nw and Holman Rd at the northend of Ballard, all the way down south, across the Ballard Bridge and then continued into Downtown Seattle. A project like this would take several weeks to accomplish but would be most beneficial to the cycling community and the environment.

We are seeking a grant of $40,000 to help advance this project. Our coalition would be willing to submit a proposal for this project for your foundation and we will be sure to follow up with a phone call within the upcoming weeks.

Thank you for your time and attention.

=Nick= 

NLRBC

District 5 Diary Blog

In order to establish that I have good sense concerning the issue of cyclists v. motorists, I would have to demonstrate to the audience that I am well informed about the issue to the point in which I would easily be able to answer any possible questions they may have about the topic. In particular, I would need to take special care in making sure that after explaining the issues to them, that they are informed while at the same time are not overwhelmed with details. Lucky for me, the topic is pretty basic, so while there are many facets of the issue, the basic idea that cyclists and motorists are struggling to get along and are constantly bickering online and in the streets about right of ways and illegal moves can be understood fairly simply.

Also, within this debate it is easy to get lost in very trivial arguments, like the thousands that take place on blogs and forums. A vast amount of those arguments are irrelevant and often incoherent, it would be very important for me to only touch on the disputes that have actual material influence on the subject and avoid juvenile refuting juvenile squabbling.

A very advantageous aspect of my character regarding this topic would be to discuss openly how I am both a cyclist and a motorist. By doing so I provide the audience with personal information about myself that helps portray a balanced position on the issue. Examining further, I can also speak of my driving record which is free of any moving violations both on a bicycle and a motor vehicle. Generally speaking, I demonstrate to the audience that I am a credible individual that can see both sides of the issue clearly, which hopefully reveals that I have personal experience regarding the ongoing circumstances of the concern.

Presenting the importance of the argument would be the most concrete way for me to reveal my goodwill for the debate. If the audience becomes aware of the dangers that revolve around the issue and can then deduct the benefits that will accrue from understanding the problem, it will be quite comprehensible to people that I only hope to better the situation for the safety of the greatest number.



For the past couple of years the San Francisco bay area has faced endless arguments concerning bicycle safety. Cyclists in the area have tried to push the city organizers to create more bike lanes, however, motorists have refuted the cyclist advocacy work and one man in particular, Robert Anderson, has spearheaded what appears to be an anti-cyclists campaign. Anderson has been keeping a blog entitled, District 5 Diary, since December of 2004, in which he scribes his personal analysis of San Francisco politics.

The blog site invites users and anonymous guests to comment on his posts, in which Anderson most usually promptly replies. Anderson has a very strong stance against the use of city funding going towards cyclists, suggesting that doing so would actually be even more harmful to the environment than if the city made more room for cars on the roads. However, Anderson lacks credibility. He himself has never conducted any research on traffic congestion in San Francisco roadways, nor does he ever cite outside research when making such statements. It is obvious from his posts that Anderson is trying to engage in pseudo-sophisticated bashing of cyclists and only further persuade those that already agree with his position, not win over people that sit on the fence.

Anderson lack goodwill in his writings. He jumps at every opportunity to take a stab at the bicycle community, and he shows it right of the bat in the sarcastic titles of his articles, such as, The push to “fix” Masonic Ave, and Implementing Bicycle Plan “Improvements.” He elects to quote terms used by the cycling community just to poke fun from his perspective. There is no concern for the well being of cyclists or even motorists for that matter. He comes off as incompetent in argument by bullying opposition, and to top it off the guy truly thinks he’s better than everyone else. Rob Anderson does not come off as a person that wants to share information for the better good, but instead acts like he’s on a personal crusade to restrain the biking community by getting legislation passed that delays (not cancels) road work. So in result, he’s just buying time and wasting the state of California’s money, which they have none of already.

School Closings

Dear Superintendent,

In regards to the closing of 5 schools in the Seattle school district I have to ask, how on earth did the school district acquire a $25,000,000 deficit? Despite the current economy, someone must have seen this coming a long time ago, so why did no one pull on the reigns to stop spending and appropriately allocate funds? Closing schools is not going to fix this issue, it is only going to put a burden on parents and their children, not remedy the problem.

The city of Seattle is contemplating saving the Post-Intelligencer, but schools? Forget about it. What happened to fiscal responsibility? Or should we just pretend it never existed in the first place? We need to focus on saving our children’s education and there are thousands of voices standing up and saying the same. The opinions and needs of the people should be worth something, so please, save these schools.

Sincerly,
Nick Kirschner

College Humor- Make it Viral!

With ADHD technology rubbing off on consumers and the day to day web/media addicts, collegehumor.com is an unconstrained onslaught of witty and crude short-form comedic videos that has sunk its teeth into the viral video market. 

While not having to abide by network rules and regulations, and with the freedom to make segments as short (or as long) as possible, collegehumor.com has taken random skits to a different playing field with damn near anything they want to do. The unique and random story lines that feature relatively low budget camera work and unprofessional acting always deliver a punch in the face of hilarity mostly due to the timing of the videos. It's rare that the segments last too long, and because of that, the in your face mentality of the pieces hold clout. It never gets old, and individuals can just keep on watching.

I foresee a problem however now that the creators are debuting a television series of the program on MTV.  With network guidelines and timing slots needing to be filled, the creators are going to have to adapt while still keeping up what people are used to. I predict that the show will never be as humorous or successful as the site, with people always commenting, "Their website is/was way better."

Rob Anderson

Rob Anderson's claims that the implementing of more bike lanes would lead to more pollution is unsubstantiated and preposterous. It is true that by decreasing the number of car lanes on the streets of San Francisco there could be more congestion as a result, but only at first. In time motorist will learn that different modes of transportation can be much quicker at rush hour times, and therefore individuals will opt to no longer drive in the city. Large cities are designed for business, not auto-motives. By putting in more bike lanes the city is encouraging people to ride bikes instead of drive their cars so that traffic will decrease over time. Delaying and/or stopping the construction of bike lanes is detrimental to the safety of cyclists and the environment.

Viaduct Debate

this debate was quite similar to a case study I used for my paper regarding the implementing of bike lanes in San Francisco and the debate that arose amongst motorists and cyclists. I think that it is obvious that alternate modes of transportation need to be at the forefront of public conversation and construction. The tunnel would be an unfortunate addition to the city. the argument that Seattle was built for automobiles and that cars will always be around is bogus and circular. Traffic exists because of cars, without them there would be no traffic and far less pollution. 

Ride a bike! Save the world!

Cyclists v. Motorists

In the battle of who owns the roads, it would appear that cyclists and motorists are frequently at each others' throats. Friction between the two has skyrocketed according to media coverage in periodicals such as the Oregonian, The Wall Street Journal and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. There are frequently stories covering current controversy at the monthly bike event, Critical Mass, or tales of bike v. car collisions that stem as a discussion point for safer biking roads and lanes throughout the country.
Such articles have created an ongoing argument not only on the streets of nearly every major city, but online on message boards where the bickering of who is to blame has taken form. Whenever there is a bike related article posted on an online newspaper site, an onslaught of comments follow. At times when users on the websites contribute personal safety tips for cyclists, or leave balanced comments defending motorists, the responses can be very helpful and informative. However, the majority of rhetoric between cyclists and motorists often quickly resorts to caustic squabbling of lopsided points of view and misinformation that generates an incredibly angry discussion.

According to the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, in 2007 over 700 cyclists died on U.S., roads and over 90% of the deaths were collisions with motor vehicles. Anyone who drives a car, rides a bike, or walks on the sidewalk is effected by this controversy because we as individuals can quickly find ourselves mixed into the argument. For a driver, all it takes is some cyclist cutting them off by running a stop sign and then flipping them the finger. For a bike rider, all it takes is a car pulling out of a driveway without looking both ways first. And for pedestrians, two words, collateral damage.

There is undoubtedly a lot of passion involved in this topic because both groups feel so adamant about their stances and will argue with each other on blogs and miscellaneous forums to no end. Neither side wants to listen to the other, especially since the majority of arguments take the form of personal criticism against each other before any kind of productivity can take place, and to that end discussions between cyclists and motorists are lacking.

The advocates on each side of this issue are incredibly diverse, and that is one of the most unique aspects of this subject because it is hard to name names and point fingers. Some of the speakers and authors analyzed are somewhat public figures while some others are completely anonymous private individuals. The range of personalities and ethos are all over the place, which is possibly why in some instances there tends to be some much bickering among the argument. At times, in the comments section of online articles when debate gets underway it turns scathing because one individual speaking may be well informed about the issue while the other is not, so for the sake of their position and the argument, they quickly resort to internet wrangling. This is a common trend for all online media, and concerning the bike v. motorist phenomenon, it is shaping the entirety of the debate.

When articles are posted online that has either reference to bicycle advocacy or simply just involves cycling, both cyclists and motorists alike cannot stay away from the opportunity to have a go at open public form opinion politics. Even when the stories are tragic, people still have something to say. On February 4th, 2009, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote a story that was available online reporting the death of 39-year-old, Kevin Black, who was commuting to work on his bicycle when he collided with a van at an intersection. According to the Seattle-PI, at the time of publishing the story investigators were still piecing together the accident and could not specify who was to blame. Seattle Police Detective Mark Jamieson could only release that the cyclists was on the left side of the van and was possibly attempting to pass it when the driver turned.

It’s a very sad story. A relatively young father of two girls dies on his way to work, and it’s unclear who is to blame for it. The posting on the newspaper’s website garnered an incredible amount of attention and provided yet again, another occasion for people to sound off in the comments section, which the Seattle PI has appropriately titled, “sound off.”

Quickly, the posters take sides. One author, screen name, Sean98125, wrote, “There is a bike lane on 24th, but the bicyclist chose to pass a line of cars on the left and also decided to pass a vehicle in a left turn lane on the left. There's no way the van driver would expect that someone would be passing her on the left hand side when she was already in the left turn lane.” He finished his post writing, “For your family's sake, cyclists, please follow and obey traffic laws.” Despite the tragic circumstances, the topic could not be left alone, and blame had to be attributed and the bike s. cars scenario had to come out.

Another poster, screen name, pwn_democrat responded saying, “Sean98125. I don't see how the cyclist was breaking the law. If cars are allowed to pass bikes, then why aren't bikes allowed to pass cars? If you are passing a bike in your car and the bike turns left in front of you, would you blame the bike? Most would say yes.” From this point, the argument absolutely takes off. Posters claiming that the driver of the van was at fault begin to make statements asserting that the Seattle Police always find a way to attribute fault to cyclists, while their opponents try and dig into cyclists themselves. One poster attacked pwn_democrat saying that he was “The type of rider who pushes his "right" to be in the same space as cars at the risk of safety, just to prove a point. You ride with a chip on your shoulder and are the exact type of rider who is the absolute worst ambassador for all riders.”

What had once been a tragic and balanced story about an untimely death, transformed into a dispute of unfounded assumptions attacking the characters of individuals that had never met. All of this was done so that those who support cyclist, or are cyclists themselves, and those who are fed up with bike riders, could vent about their distaste for each other, all the while not generating actual discussion about the honest dangers the two pose for each other.

Even reputable websites, like bicyclesafe.com, which provides tips to cyclists on ways to preemptively avoid crashes can’t help but take jabs at motorists. In describing the scenario of a cyclist being hit by the opening of a car door, or the “Door Prize” as titled on the website, the author, Michael Bluejay writes that if you can’t stop in time and “If you're lucky, the motorist will exit the car before you hit the door, so you'll at least have the pleasure of smashing them too when you crash, and their soft flesh will cushion your impact.”

Statements like this on websites that receive a high number of visits from cyclists (especially after the website had a write-up in Portland’s Oregonian) perpetuates the creation of factions between the cycling community and motorists. The website, though clearly designed for bike riders’ safety, is uninviting for car drivers because it bashes on them. The values of the author, Bluejay, rests among cyclists and though his website could be used both for the benefit of cyclists as well as motorists, the content he chooses deviates away from getting knowledge out to both sides, and only increases the rivalry between parties.

In San Francisco, cyclists and motorists have been duking it out since 2006 over the installation of new biking roadways that were supposed to be implemented but were delayed because one man, Rob Anderson, argued that urban bicycle boosting could actually be bad for the environment. The city postponed putting in new bike lanes and bike racks until the city completed an environmental-impact report. Anderson argues that cars will always vastly outnumber bikes and that allotting more street space to cyclists could cause more traffic jams, more idling and more pollution. He claims that the attempt of enlarging bike lines is an "attempt by the anti-car fanatics to screw up our traffic on behalf of the bicycle fantasy," he wrote in his blog back in August of 2008. The backlash by the cycling community in San Francisco has been fervent, and the arguments has taken to his blog where the exchange of insults and combatant disputes won’t rest.

Individuals respond to Anderson’s postings with lewd remarks, calling him a “fag,” a “poor, small, ignorant SOB,” and a “pathetic blight on Humanity” just to list a few, and conversely, Anderson rockets back his own sarcastic offense, that usually loks something like this when responding to a cyclist: “Like a lot of bike people, you have a reading and comprehension problem, possibly from inhaling too much carbon monoxide while riding your bike.”
The outbursts attacking Anderson, as well as Anderson’s rude comments are obviously not helpful to the necessary discussion, and more importantly, opponents of Anderson should focus on the discussion of his claims, and not just be bitter because he successfully suspended the bicyclist road plan. If they could focus on the issue more attentively instead of making uncouth remarks they could see that there is a fallacy within Anderson’s claim that bikes will cause more pollution because that argument is circular. The fact of the matter is that a traffic jam is the result of their being too many cars congested on the road. The keyword is cars. The lessening of cars, not bicycles or bike lanes would lighten traffic. If cyclists could usefully deconstruct his argument, then their perspective would have a much greater influence.

Looking at all the fighting, name calling and unsubstantianted criticisms it would be hard for any outside observer to see what the real point of the discussion going on is. The two groups are incredibly biased to their cause, and without logic or reason they try and persue their fantasy of either a world free of cars, or a world free of bikes. The emotions take control of the debate and no one listens to each other.

Every so often groups like the Cascade Bicycle Club will hold open public forums in a town hall setting with public officials like police or district representatives so that discussions about the issue can take place that has mediators. Only in these situations is there actual productive discussion going on because not only do the individuals have a tendency to be more respectful in person rather than online, but there are also ranking individuals there (the mediators) that can be influenced and can help the situation by being proactive in the issue. If all the debates are left in the hands of the people who instinctly want to just bash the opposing side, then no one will ever benefit.


Work Cited

Bluejay, Michael. "How To Not Get Hit By Cars." How To Not Get Hit By Cars. Oct. 2008. 28 Jan. 2009 .

Dvorak, Phred. "San Francisco Ponders: Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution." Wall Street Journal Online. 20 Aug. 2008. 01 Feb. 2009 .

Rob, Anderson. ""Keep Up The Good Work Mr. Anderson"" Weblog post. District 5 Diary. 20 Aug. 2008. 29 Jan. 2009 .

Rose, Joseph. "For Cyclists, 'how to not get hit by cars' in ten easy lesson." Oregonian 26 Jan. 2009. 29 Jan. 2009 http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/01/for_cyclists_how_to_not_get_hi.html#comments

"Seattle PI Sound Off." Seattle Post Intelligencer. 04 Feb. 2009. 04 Feb. 2009 .

Unknown. "Bicycle Helmet Statistics." Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute. 09 Jan. 2009. Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute. 29 Jan. 2009 .

Wong, Brad. "Bike Rider Killed In Ballard." Seattle Post Intelligencer 04 Feb. 2009. 04 Feb. 2009 .

SU-D1

The Seattle University athletic program moving from Division I to Division II is a landmark event for the small Jesuit school. The transitional period has a cloudy future because there is no telling how the first few years of competition are going to go. So far the university’s basketball team has seen relative success in their first season as a D-I team, winning several games in their conference and playing on the same level as every team they have gone head to head with.
However, now the big test is approaching. On March 3rd the team will be playing the University of Washington Huskies, who has a history of always being a competitive team that always rises well to rivalry, and this year is a complete powerhouse against other Pac-10 teams. The outlook for the game suspects that Seattle U will fall miserably in defeat, and if I had money to bet on the game, I would definitely put my money on the Dawgs.
Despite the outcome of March 3rd though, people need to realize that this is a year for the Redhawks to learn. They are being educated on what it takes to compete at this level, and now is the time to work all of the kinks out and improve as players. Like philosopher Isocrates said, “The root of education is bitter, but sweet are its fruits.” Ie. This young team has to take a couple beatings in order to grow.

MAP Intro

In the battle of who owns the roads, it would appear that cyclists and motorists are frequently at each others' throats. Friction between the two has skyrocketed according to media coverage in periodicals such as the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. There are frequently stories covering current controversy at the monthly bike event, Critical Mass, or tales of bike v. car collisions that stem as a discussion point for safer biking roads and lanes throughout the country.

Such articles have created an ongoing argument not only on the streets of nearly every major city, but online on message boards where the bickering of who is to blame has taken form. Whenever there is a bike related article posted on an online newspaper site, an onslaught of comments follow. At times when users on the websites contribute personal safety tips for cyclists, or leave balanced comments defending motorists, the responses can be very helpful and informative. However, the majority of rhetoric between cyclists and motorists often quickly resorts to caustic squabbling of lopsided points of view and misinformation that generates an incredibly angry discussion.

Anyone who drives a car, rides a bike, or walks on the sidewalk is effected by this controversy because we as individuals can quickly find ourselves mixed into the argument. For a driver, all it takes is some cyclist cutting them off by running a stop sign and then flipping them the finger. For a bike rider, all it takes is a car pulling out of a driveway without looking both ways first. And for pedestrians, two words, collateral damage.

There is undoubtedly a lot of emotions involved in this topic because both groups feel so adamant about their stances and will argue with each other on blogs and miscellaneous forums to no end. Neither side wants to listen to the other, especially since the majority of arguments take the form of personal criticism against each other before any kind of productivity can take place, and in result discussions between cyclists and motorists are lacking.

Narrative

Every morning Lucas Boyle rides his 1989 Bianchi road bike to Seattle University campus in pursuit of his Fine Arts Degree. One morning as he was coasting in the bike lane on 12th Ave, which runs parallel to the University, a forrest green 2007 Range Rover took a right hand turn directly into Lucas' path. The vehicle had not signaled and Lucas had no time to dodge the collision. The impact launched Lucas over his handlebars, ricocheting him off the hood of the car and then down to the pavement, breaking his elbow and splitting his helmet in half. As Lucas lied on the concrete grimacing in pain, the driver of the vehicle stepped out of the car and said, "Why don't you watch where you're going?"

Help Me Wanda!

Referring to something as being "gay," "fruity" or any likeness there of in reference to it being dumb...is dumb. The adcouncil's campaign is very current and necessary, however the choice of spokespersons is, uh, iffy to say the least. Wanda Sykes and Hilary Duff are not A-List stars that hold clout with the majority of the young demographic.

Hilary Duff is not effective. She is an ex-Disney wash-up star that kids don't connect to, especially males, who make up the bulk of individuals that make such references. The stars necessary not only need to be more mainstream, but they need to be cool so that kids see that cool folks don't make such rude references.  

The adcouncil has the right idea by making an interactive campaign using their well styled website and videos to watch. But really, kids don't want to listen to Wanda Sykes or Hilary Duff. I also would think it kinda creepy if Hilary Duff was ease dropping on me and my friends while I was trying on clothes. In her defense, it would also be a bit creepy if I was trying on women's clothes at a fancy boutique, but still, I'd rather have Christian Bale sneak up on me in a clothing store, hell, he's Batman!

Wanda Sykes is also a terrible comedian and actor. Seeing her in a commercial made me talk about how talentless she is instead of focusing on the issue.

Grimy Grimes

Jack Grimes described in a very well written piece the (dare I say) ins and outs of college hooking-up. He explained very clearly that there is more to sexual promiscuity than just physical stimulation, but that individuals still seek and gain from sexual encounters a sense of powerful intimacy that affirms the person through what Grimes describes as "privileged access." He claims that aside from physical pleasure, college students seek the "consent of a partner," because it is the feeling of acceptance that lays at the heart of hooking-up. 

Grimes also states however that hooking-up is all about "holding back," meaning that the more sex you have promiscuously detaches you from sex, and lessens the pleasures that go along with it. He also continues on by targeting woman who commit serial hook-ups, and suggests that they are not liberating themselves, but instead are "in essence, an unpaid prostitute," who in result becomes a sex object for men. First of all, just because there is a hooking up culture in college, that does not mean that it is the practice of all students. Furthermore, Grimes overgeneralizes that most women, particularity in college, want a relationship to stem from a hook-up. That is often not the case. Also, just a woman is promiscuous that does not make her an object for everyone. Believe it or not, there are some males who do not believe in the "Stud vs. Slut" totem pole that makes every women an object of personal gain.

Grimes does a fine job describing the personal interest and acceptance related to hooking-up, but it is still a generalization. There are always exceptions to the rule. He describes one on one encounters, and sometimes, guess what, there more than just two consenting parties, sometimes lots more, and those instance cloud Grimes' argument a little.

Josh Says I Have to Have Title

            The Westboro Baptist church uses its hatred for homosexuals as a catalyst to hate everything they disagree with. Not only are they a disgustingly homophobic group, but also using elementary school logic they are also arbitrarily racist and have the traits of a cult rather than a church. 

 

They despise all other religions, claiming that those of the Jewish faith are “nothing more than typical, impenitent sinners,” that Catholics are a “fag” church in which one third of Catholic priests are practicing homosexuals who according to Westboro Baptists Church suck the semen out of little boy’s testicles like vampires. Reverend Phelps, the leader of the hate group stated that the originator of the Islam faith, Mohammed was a “demon-possessed whoremonger and pedophile who contrived a 300 page work of satanic fiction, The Quran!”

 

The group allegedly attempts to distance itself from racism, but it is clear in their logic that no one is safe from hate. They have depicted an African American political leader as a gorilla with a Nazi swastika armband. The hatred they excrete towards homosexuals trickles down to every race, every religion, every American, and every nationality this world has to offer.

 

They are also commies. Seriously, they live communally, all sharing the same backyard and sharing homes.  Totally commies, which I’m fine with, but I bet if they weren’t in denial and could realize the hypocrisy of that, they’d be pretty pissed at themselves and would probably have to start a website about hating themselves so much.

Bicycle Master Plan...BUWAHAHA!

When it comes to the topic of transportation, most would agree that due to the economic crisis and the unreliable pricing of gas, seeking alternative means of transportation is a liable and responsible way to travel. In the fall of 2007 the Seattle City Council passed a unanimous decision to go forward with the Seattle Bicycle Master Plan (BMP), which is a comprehensive roadmap to make the city of Seattle a more biker-friendly town. The BMP, designed by The Cascade Bicycle Club, proposes a network of bikeways to help Seattle cyclists travel more safely and easily via additional bicycle lanes, shared lanes, signed bike routes, and bicycle boulevards. Altogether, the BMP calls for over 450 miles of new bicycle facilities to be installed over the next 10 years.

In discussion of the BMP, Cycling enthusiasts find the implementing of such a plan a milestone in cycling history. Particularly, members of the Cascade Bicycling club are elated about the application of the BMP because it was their group that vigilantly created and amended the plan and put it in front of the local governments.

Similarly, the Seattle bike messenger community is also pleased with the plans according to blogs and comment sections on the Seattle PI website. Messengers have expressed that the crowded and bustling streets of downtown encroach on their ability to safely maneuver among cars and pedestrians in order to promptly deliver their packages. With the addition of bike lanes couriers hope that hazardous intersection collisions and tension between cyclists and motorists is eliminated.

Motorists however have argued that the introduction of expansive list of bikeways is a possible waste of taxpayer’s money since the population of bicycle riders in Seattle makes up only a small percentage of commuting traffic, and more money needs to go to other divisions of mass transit.

Also, others maintain that cyclists are far too reckless, and often don’t follow the basic rules of the road and therefore should not be granted additional roadway. These people advocate that cyclists should be required to have a license to ride their bike in the street, but since the state of Washington does not mandate that cyclists need a license, according to these individuals bike riders should not be in the streets. This equates then that cyclists should not be given shared lanes or additional bike lanes.

1) The Cascade Bicycle Club wrote an article describing the comprehensive layout of their proposed and later passed Bicycle Master Plan. The posting details the 450 miles of planned bike lane and widened lane expansion and also describes the clubs plans for bike education and safety in coalition with the city council. In the article the author also defines the multi-utility and use of extending cycling roadways and access within the city and lists favorable reasons of why their plan is advantageous to the city for everyone, not just cyclists.

2) The article written by the Cascade Bicycle club detailing the advance of cycling roadways and safety in the Seattle area is a great achievement not only for cyclists, but for the entire city. The advent of the BMP will encourage and possibly inspire exercise, support alternative modes of transportation, relieve congestion, keep the environment clean, decrease tension on the streets between cyclists and motorist, and above all keep the roads safe for cyclists. The number of new cyclists has increased strongly across the country in the past several years due to the price of gas and it is our government’s responsibility to acknowledge the augment of bike riders and ensure that citizens are safe on the roads.

3) It would appear that the real plan according the Cascade Bicycle Club and the BMP is to make driving a motor vehicle in the city harder, if not impossible. People drive cars all year round, whereas from what I can tell cyclists only stick to the fair weather months. This means that in Seattle, where it just so happens to obviously rain a lot, many people don’t commute on their bikes. This plan is not congestion relief and what we need is competent planning, not advocacy, which is all the Cascade Bicycle Club excretes.

4) The author of the article is unnamed, but obviously is a member in some caliber of the Cascade Bicycle Club and has written the article as a bicycle advocate detailing news about the biggest bicycle initiative to ever be passed in Washington State. Considering that the CBC was responsible for the creating and passing of the initiative, the article was basically a news feed explaining that the bike community can have hope for a safer and more eco-friendly city due the passing of the BMP. I am well aware of the Cascade Bicycling Club, and so I know that off hand, the author was going to be very passionate about the passing of the plan, so I of course needed to keep an open mind regarding the circumstances of spending X amount of dollars on additional bikeways.