"Nobody puts baby in a corner."

All too often in our society, children are pushed aside or “swept under the rug” as if they have no feelings or concerns on important issues at all; for instance, children are rarely consulted by their parents if the family is planning a move to another state of if a divorce is on the rise. The film Moonrise Kingdom by Wes Anderson confronts this issue of American society treating its children as brainless individuals head on.

At first, I had absolutely no desire to watch this film, because it “looked weird”. After incessant bothering supplied by my closest friends though, I gave in and decided to give the movie a chance. I am so glad I did, because the film is vastly different from any I have previously seen, and it gives children an intelligent, completely competent role to play- a refreshing change and something that I appreciate. Controversy arose over this very idea of children being represented by Wes Anderson as being on the same level as adults, but I believe this is an area that should be looked into more. Luke Buckmaster, a man who frequently reviews and critiques films, wrote in his blog:

The oddest thing about Moonrise Kingdom is not its intentional strangeness (offbeat compositions, downbeat characters, random quirky shots of sweet nothings, etcetera) but the manner with which it sexualises minors, gets them cavorting in the woods and talking about boners while the film around them lathers itself in youthful whimsy, a sort of Bill Henson, Roald Dahl co-production. There’s nothing wrong with kiddie pool deep escapism, nothing at all, but when Anderson mixes in erections and groping, long leggy shots of prepubescents and an attempt to create serious romance, the sand pit becomes weirdly soiled.

In Anderson’s universe young and old characters operate on the same plain of existence, with broadly the same level of maturity and intellectual cognisance. Young people are often adult-like (the prodigy characters in Fantastic Mr Fox and Rushmore, for example) and the adults often childish.

More to the point, age doesn’t seem to exist in Anderson’s films. The kids in Moonrise Kingdom speak with the same deadpan smugness as the adults and vice versa.

Clearly Mr. Buckmaster does not enjoy the idea of adults and children being represented as equals or even as equally minded. I would argue that children are human beings and have thoughts and feelings the same as anyone though. People like Buckmaster underestimate the intellectual capabilities of children and place them on a lower level of humanity than adults, who often behave more like children than children themselves… but I digress.  It seems that the very reasons Buckmaster and others have a problem with Moonrise Kingdom and Wes Anderson’s style of film-making are the same reasons that I applaud Anderson’s efforts. I enjoy watching “young and old characters operate on the same plain of existence”, because why should they not? Who says that children must fit into a certain category of maturity and intelligence? Every person is different, and I have met plenty of children who are intellectually more capable than the adults that have been gifted the opportunity to raise them (but perhaps do not see it that way). Before brushing children aside as unknowing and “lower”, perhaps it is time for our society to give them the benefit of the doubt- even hold them to a higher standard and give them the opportunity to rise to the occasion.       

COUNTRY: Footloose and Fancy Free? Or Fighting for the Dignity of Women?

In a recent conversation with a close friend, the idea was brought to my attention that “country” may be a subculture. I will refer to it as capital-“C” Country from here on out. After much thought and discussion, I have to agree with this assessment. I am from the central coast of California, and in recent years, I have found people around me eager to classify themselves as Country. The subculture is often discussed, and fans or non-fans can be found writing about their love for or hatred of country music all the time. I would encourage discussion of Country as a way of being itself though. 

I was raised in a small farm town and choose to do things like organizing picnics and going line dancing on a weekly basis...just good, down-home fun stuff, and I believe I can explain what it means to be Country as well as anyone, because I feel that I am just that, Country (even though I don't particularly enjoy going around saying that about myself- because it's who I am, not like some weird title for me...anyways...back on track). The definition can vary from person to person, region to region, but most, like the author of the "Country Music Subculture" blog post would agree on a few positive things. Kailey McNeill writes,

In my opinion, country music is all about having a good time, love for America, and where we come from.

Clearly McNeill is speaking of the music subculture that her article is centered around, but the values continue from there to make what is Country. To be Country is to have strong family values (which Google defines as “values held to be traditionally learned or reinforced within a family, such as those of high moral standards and discipline”) like loving your parents and going to church to have some good time with your community and God on Sundays, being highly patriotic and respecting/serving your country (America, that is), and enjoying the simple things in life like listening to loud music while driving your truck through an open field or going fishing. These are all ideas or ways of life that are not necessarily bad in and of themselves. In fact, I would argue that they are positive ways of looking at the world and contributing to society…of course within reason… some people can be excessive… but I digress.

The troubling development of the Country subculture does not have to do with these values that the subculture has traditionally held but rather with ones that seem to be becoming increasingly popular in recent times. Old Country music and fashion used to involve all of the things described above, and the current Country subculture still does, but there used to be an emphasis and a value on respecting women and being an honorable person and having a good work ethic. This can all be seen in songs like "Grandpa Tell Me 'Bout the Good Old Days" by The Judds, who, by the way, were women who did not have to use sex appeal or “crop tops” in their fashion choices to sell their music, "Little Moments" by Brad Paisley, who is actually a more current country artist yet has held onto Old Country values by writing of women as imperfect people who deserve respect rather than writing of females as plastic, emotionless dolls whose worth comes from their perfect rear-ends and not their personalities or intellect, and "Perfect" by Sarah Evans. Many, if not most, country artists no longer include these traits or values in their songs and seem to be less popular if they do. In the same way, perhaps due to being influenced by this music, a turn has been taken towards self-centeredness and the objectification of women  in the Country community, that for some reason is generally deemed acceptable in the subculture (at least by the youths). Sexist songs about how women are only around to please men and about how a woman’s worth is dependent on her sex appeal dominate the country music charts these days, and those values are creeping into the mindsets of Country youths. Young men are gaining the understanding that women must be here for their personal pleasure, and women are beginning to think that they deserve that kind of treatment from men. After all, songs like "Cruise" by Florida Georgia Line and "Get Me Some of That" by Thomas Rhett are only a couple of the many put out there that reinforce the notion that if you want to be treated well as a woman, you had better own tight jeans and be “hot”. What is so disturbing is the extreme popularity of these songs. It is safe to say that much better songs have been written, yet according to the GAC blog, “Cruise” is reportedly the “best-selling digital country single in history”. Really?!

It seems that others have noticed this ridiculous turn/trend in Country ways though. On a strongly-worded blog, called SavingCountryMusic.com, the writer mentions that  

“Cruise” is about cheap girls and expensive trucks. Tyler and Brian think they’re picking up all these chicks because of their pimped-out ride, but the truth is most of these sweet little fraulines haven’t said no to a man since puberty.

I do not completely agree with the ways in which this particular writer attacks the video and lyrics in the entirety of his piece, but he does make a good point here. This “trashy” side should not be and did not used to be what Country was all about. An over-abundance of songs and attitudes like this would not have been so commonly accepted, celebrated, and enjoyed as they are now. I believe that songs like these can actually be entertaining and fun to dance to and sing with your friends to, but their meanings must be taken seriously, and I believe it is important for anyone listening to the songs to realize that the words being said are not good indicators of how we should live. Taking in ideals of women as objects and of serving ourselves first and foremost, ignoring the feelings and needs of others, can be detrimental to our society and to the subculture of Country if we allow them to infiltrate our thinking and bring them into our everyday lives and values on more than a “fun song, good beat” basis.

The film, Footloose, released in 2011 does an impeccable job of pinpointing the harsh realities and problems that are connected to the way the current Country trend is going. Young men seem to be respecting women less and less and take more pride in their new Ford pickup truck than in who the woman is that is sitting next to them in the passenger seat. One scene in the film shows the lead actress being abused and disrespected by a Country man. The scene is brutal, but it does well to direct audiences to the idea that women are worth more than this kind of treatment. The lead, Julianne Hough, is portrayed throughout the film as this beautiful, vivacious girl who seems to be nothing more than that. The genius of the film is that it turns this character and “type” on its head. Rather than remaining the dumb, blonde bombshell for the entirety of the film, Hough begins to reveal complexity in her character that proves her to be an intelligent, interesting human being with real thoughts and feelings. Even while she has her guard up and presents herself as an unemotional, “strong” lady though, many characters treat her the same throughout the movie. For instance, the lead male does not treat her differently. He treats her with respect during the entirety of the movie and refuses to take advantage of her or disrespect her, even when he has the “opportunity”. This shows honor as valuable, because he is the one who ends up getting to know her for who she is in the end and having the chance to be close to her because he first took the time to understand who she was as a person and appreciate her for that. This male lead enjoys line dancing and could be put into the Country category, but he is contrasted with the other kind of Country character, Chuck, the man who is insulting and self-centered and lazy and who treats women as if they are all the same and dispensable. Chuck’s ugliness is shown in the scene linked above, and it becomes apparent to audiences that what they may have found attractive and enticing in the beginning, in a character who seems like he relates to the ideals of contemporary country songs that many audience members love- and who seems to be having a good time, is really cold-hearted and frightening and dark. Audiences see the reality of the new Country mindset that is surfacing and being accepted.  

Footloose does well to make audiences think about the ideas that they are accepting through the music that they listen to and the clothes that they wear. The film shows characters emerge from rather dark situations and become free. Julianne Hough no longer dresses in slinky clothing because she feels that she has to in order to be valued. Her male counterpart respects her regardless of her attire because he has spent time talking with her and understanding her life and who she is as a person. The main character also stands up for his values, such as being trusted even though he is different from others in the town and having the ability to dance when he pleases. He is a person who has goals and who goes after those goals, and he ends up being successful... unlike Chuck, the racecar driver, who seems as if he will stay in the small town, drive cars, and smoke marijuana for the rest of his life. In these ways, Footloose, takes Country and presents it on the big screen for everyone to see close-up. The audience is left with much to think about and decisions to make.

We can continue to allow our minds to be overrun by the negative values of country media that are presented to us and adhere to that way of thinking, or we can guard ourselves and understand that there are very serious, potentially corrosive mindsets available to us and that we should prepare to combat those mindsets with healthy, constructive thoughts and lifestyles. Country should still mean protecting women and their value as human beings. It should still mean spending time with your family and working hard. Country should still mean appreciating the little things in life because you spent your time earning what you have and the world around us is a wonderful gift to be enjoyed. Country should still mean having honor and protecting freedom. Country WON’T mean these things if the younger generation of today continues to progress in the way that they have. Musical artists should take a stand and begin to assess the values that their songs are conveying. Listeners should listen critically and make a conscious effort to decide what they will and will not believe and take to heart from the song lyrics they hear. It goes beyond music. When purchasing clothing, people should ask themselves why. Am I buying this for myself and to fit my own style or because I want the boys/girls on my block to notice me? Little, everyday things like this will affect the future of Country, and the decisions that we make will afford that future the opportunity to be better or worse.                            

Josh Radnor, A Public Intellectual in His Own Right

When asked to provide an example of a “public intellectual”, Josh Radnor may not be the first name that comes into one’s mind. He is, however, just that. Radnor is best known for his role in the hit television show, How I Met YourMother, but he defines the role of a public intellectual, perhaps in a unique way. His intellectual achievement and contribution to public discourse can best be seen in the 2012 film, Liberal Arts, which Radnor wrote, directed, and starred in.

Josh Radnor was born in Columbus, Ohio in 1974, grew up, and attended college at KenyonCollege in the same state. Radnor has since become an actor, director, producer, and screenwriter. He enjoys writing and directing his own works. Since the release of his first film in 2010 and Liberal Arts in 2012, Radnor’s image as a public intellectual has begun to shine.

To argue for Radnor’s role as a public intellectual, it is important to first look at what classifies a person as such. In Stephen Mack’s blog site, a post entitled The"Decline" of the Public Intellectual (?) makes an excellent case for what a public intellectual actually is, which leads to the conclusion that Radnor exemplifies such a person. Mack writes of a myth,  

Common-folk (like kids) always get into trouble because they lack what all paternal intellectuals have by birthright—impulse control. The infantile common-folk who comprise the “mob” has been the star of elitist melodrama for centuries; they’re also “exhibit A” in nearly every hand-wringing, anti-democratic treatise in the western tradition. Now, are some people ill-equipped for self-government? Of course. But the strongest alternative argument, the best argument for democracy, is not that the people are “naturally” equipped for self-government—but that they need to become so, and, moreover, experience is the only teacher. So here’s the point: Any argument for the public intellectual that, like Donatich’s, rests the assumption that common citizens are forever childlike and must be led by a class of experts is politically corrosive and historically dangerous. 

Mack is stating here that it is a bad idea to think that the common man can’t think for himself and therefore has to be led by a class of experts. A link begins to form in Mack’s writing between the everyday, common man and the public intellectual. The argument is raised that these two types of people can possibly be one and the same. Mack continues on to show that it is the work, not the who that makes a public intellectual.  

So, is there any way of conceptualizing something called the public intellectual that is consistent with democratic values? Of course there is, but it needs to begin with a shift from “categories and class” to “function.” That is, our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public intellectual is—and by extension, the qualifications for getting and keeping the title. Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.

This point that the public intellectual themself, as a person, do not necessarily matter as long as they are making an impact through their work is interesting, because the same point is actually made by Radnor in his film, Liberal Arts, and in a discussion that was held after the film’s premiere. Radnor speaks of criticism and its importance in society, just as Mack does. Mack states in his writing of the public intellectual that               

The public intellectual function is criticism. And if intellectuals are in a better position to perform that function it’s not because they are uniquely blessed with wisdom—and it’s certainly not because they are uniquely equipped to wield social or political power. It is only because learning the processes of criticism and practicing them with some regularity are requisites for intellectual employment. It’s what we do at our day jobs.

In this way, it can be seen that the public intellectual is meant to produce criticism of some sort. Usually this should come to bare on matters of social, political, and cultural importance. Radnor agrees with and enforces this notion. In an interview with The Huffington Post, Radnor was asked to speak on the idea of his 2012 film being a “very earnest movie”, which makes it an outlier in today’s world of popular film. Radnor responded,

I think the word "earnest" kind of has a negative connotation on some level. I think one of the things that's happened is that being cynical is somehow conflated with being sophisticated. I think that's problematic, to say the least. I don't think evil people or negative people are inherently interesting all the time. People who are good people getting better at being themselves -- to me, that's something that's really interesting to watch. I went to college with really good people and had really excellent teachers and met some fascinating folks and I think those people are worthy of our attention. They're going through something. As they say, "Everyone's fighting a great battle." I think just attacking something with great sincerity feels kind of brave in this day and age, but I feel like that's what I want to do.

Radnor speaks here of the idea that many popular films in today’s culture do not address issues that the average, everyday man comes across. Rather than creating a film that will portray an actor murdering his entire family, for instance, and being thrown in jail for that crime, Radnor chooses to focus his film on the kinds of realities that the average person faces every day. In another interview, Radnor describes the realities he addresses as   

the themes that interested me—nostalgia, accepting change, resisting change, aging and growing up—or not growing up. 

Each of these themes that he covers in his work are social issues that are extremely important in our society. People worry over change all the time. For instance, if gas prices rise, people must decide if they will resist or not; perhaps they consider things such as driving their cars less. Change is something we must deal with every day. The same goes for aging, and it is something that many people fear…aging, death, dying. Radnor focuses on these issues and others as well, such as depression and job loss. These are all areas that the average American citizen can comprehend and see reflections of in their own life, and I believe that is the reason that Radnor’s film is an incredible example of an intellectual work. The images stick with you. Rather than through writings or intellectual discussions, Radnor uses the medium of film to process his thoughts and experiences on popular social issues through characters, and since audiences can relate to the practical struggles the film’s characters encounter, the lessons taken away are not easily forgotten. Radnor states of his own interests,

I'm interested in real people going through things that feel vital and feel of their time. I want the film to have a timeless quality to it. When I go to movies and I love the movie, it's because it feels like it articulated something about how we're living now, and also gives me some insight into my own life. I feel actually altered after having seen it.

Radnor’s film definitely leaves audiences this way, and it presents ideas about our society and culture and the ways in which we function so that discussions of these issues begin to circulate. This clearly makes Radnor a public intellectual. He talks about real life and actual social issues on a public stage, and what better stage to use than that of film? In today’s culture, most ordinary people enjoy films and regularly attend public viewings of them. Radnor knows this, and he has decided to use the new, digital age we find ourselves in to spark intellectual debates in audiences. This is interesting, because Radnor seems to be defining the role of a public intellectual in a unique, new way. As a popular actor and film director, he is a man with influence, but he is also a normal American citizen from Ohio. Radnor in and of himself proves the point that it does not matter who a public intellectual is but what they do, and he shows this viewpoint that he himself holds in Liberal Arts. Personally, I found myself yearning to read books more after viewing the film for the first time. This is a main issue that Radnor actually tackled in his movie. He constantly showed characters, who were average people, striving to read more and therefore make their pursuit of learning their own. Radnor is in a sense pushing audiences to become public intellectuals, just as he himself is. He wants people to read and to argue and to stand for issues, to take sides. He wants people to be critical. When asked about popular entertainment, Radnor said,

I'm of the opinion, especially for young people, that given the landscape of entertainment options -- they can have their faces buried in all those machines -- I think there's something kind of sweet and touching about someone who's sitting there with a book. With bound pages with writing on them. Whether that's Harry Potter or Twilight. I used to read a ton of Stephen King when I was a kid -- which is funny, because I really hate horror movies -- but I used to tear through those. I found my way to all sorts of other literature because I got the experience of being told a story through a book. I think it's OK to read for pleasure, but I was interested in this debate: What's the purpose of reading? Is it to nourish us or entertain us. For me, the very best books are the ones that do both of those things at the same time.

Radnor shows in his words here that he spent time thinking about the intellectual aspects of his film. Rather than focusing on characters who use cell phones and i-pads, Radnor chose to incorporate pens and paper, characters who communicate through letters, and books. Due to the wealth of knowledge that Liberal Arts’ characters gain from their reading and their “old-fashioned” social interactions, these people can be seen to have more to talk about, more to debate than most young people on college campuses today, who bury their faces in their smart phones every time there is an awkward pause in conversation. The characters of the film have opinions, and they express them. They have debates. They educate themselves on issues that are important to them, and they then feel free to stand their ground. One character in the film speaks a crucial line during a heated debate. She says,

“You think it’s cool to hate things but it’s not. It’s boring. Talk about what you love and keep quiet about what you don’t.” 

This moment is interesting, because it brings up a social issue (that of the way that our society constantly focuses on the negative and seems to think that leaving rude comments on Facebook somehow makes one “cooler”, etc.) that Radnor, as a writer, clearly has an opinion on that he chooses to allow audiences to see in the scene, yet the debate that this line is presented in shows two, intelligent characters holding their ground in an argument over a book…essentially, they are arguing over knowledge itself and what intellectualism is. The character speaking is reasoning that no matter what level of education a person is at, everyone should have the opportunity to find subjects that interest them and develop personal opinions on those subjects, while the other character is arguing that certain subjects (like classical literature) are inherently important and often cannot be understood by people like “simple-minded” teenagers, who like to read vampire novels. Because the character speaking wins the argument after this line, audiences can see that the film is suggesting that undermining the intelligence level of average people and proclaiming that only the educated have the right to form opinions and engage in debates is wrong, and audience members can move on from the movie theatre to decide if they agree with that assessment of the situation or not. Wah-lah! Now there are people moving from the theatre into the real world, sparking intellectualism of their own, which was Radnor’s goal in the first place. Additionally, this important scene of two characters “duking it out” verbally with each other is exciting and desirable. Audiences can see that the characters are having a good time using the knowledge they have gained from their studies to have an intelligent conversation with one another, and this makes viewers of the film take a look at their own lives and want that sort of interaction. In this sense, Radnor’s film can be seen as the work of a public intellectual, because it pushes audiences to engage in meaningful discourse with one another after the film is through, whether it be about their own ideas or about the social issues presented in the movie, and people leave the theatre able to understand that Radnor is trying to enforce the notion that anyone, no matter who they are, have the ability to think critically about life and should be doing just that.