Blogging the News

Video: Club Cache brings in Top Salsa Performers from Mexico to debut one of their Spiciest choreography in New York City!

There is no doubt that New Yorkers love to dance. New York City offers a list of great venues for the young, hip, and old. However, none like the hottest low-key Salsa venue, “Club Cache”, located on 22 West and 39^th street in Manhattan. This nightclub is not just the typical Salsa nightclub you walk into to groove. This spot is especially made for the “Salsa on 2” lovers. “Salsa on 2” is better known as the New York Salsa. It is a formal dance style that comply rules as oppose to the free-style “Salsa” that we all know. So if you are feeling the Salsa itch on your feet, be prepared to bring a towel and your Mambo shoes along.

As soon as you walk into this underground Salsa nightclub, you can’t help but to feel excited from the anticipation of having a great night of Salsa Dancing. The Salsa music makes you feel so welcomed and good inside. The glow in the dark walls are so appealing to eye. Each side has pictures of different singers, musicians, animation/videogame characters and dance movies of all time such as: Michael Jackson, Slash, Mario, Pac-Man, Flash Dance and more. You just can’t get over the whole 80’s and 90’s Latin funk vibe. It’s outstanding and vibrant.

New Yorkers are not only lucky to find a “Salsa On 2” dance spot that opens their doors on the weekends, but also on Thursday nights. At a regular nightclub, one would argue that people only go there to mingle and have a good time out. People are less devoted to dancing and perhaps more devoted to the music. At a Salsa nightclub like Cache, people are here to do what they do best, solely dance. In fact, many people also come here to relieve off stress from a long day of work or one is simply fed up with the idea that why should one even bother to wait for Friday, Saturday, or Sunday to dance.

At this fascinating Salsa nightclub, I met a variety of people who shared their feelings about nightclubs. I met Winnie Zambrano, a college student who goes to Salsa nightclubs from time to time, was enjoying dancing to every Salsa song as any young lady or Salsera’ would. She explained how Club Cache is different than regular nightclubs.

“People here actually dance to DANCE. It’s not like the regular nightclub where you walk into, and you’re immediately getting hit on or judged.“ – Zambrano said.

This demonstrates the true reality of the “Salsa On 2” scene. The ladies can feel free and comfortable to come in wearing their highest heel dancing shoes without having any kind of intimidation. In the Salsa world, most males that know the true ethics of Salsa actually ask the ladies permission first if they want to dance. “It’s as if you are Cinderella and prince charming comes along extending his right hand to you with one arm back asking the question, ‘May I please have one dance with you Madam?” – Zambrano said.

Carolina Quinones, a Med-school student in Long Island comes to Club Cache to dance and watch top-notch performers from across the globe.

Quinones said she feels good after a night of dancing at Club Cache.

“Gladly, I don’t feel that guilt of shame when I leave at the end of the night as I would with a regular nightclub. I actually feel like I’ve done something productive for myself. That is, receiving inspiration from others and developing my Salsa skills” – She said.

Luckily that night, Club Cache brought in Salsa performers from Mexico to debut one of their spiciest choreography! At first, their choreography started with the basic salsa moves but as soon as the beat got faster they managed to wowed the audience from head to toe. Club Cache offers people the advantage to learn spectacular Salsa dance moves from so many individuals across the globe. Hence, not only Salsa lovers or students come here to dance but the professionals as well.

Club Cache is the go-to spot for those who desire the real New York Salsa sensation. Once you are in, you are in for the spin of a lifetime.

David Fincher’s Gone Girl has hit the cultural zeitgeist. It has been the subject of more think pieces and op-eds than perhaps any film this year. And although not really an “indie” film, the timeliness of the film’s subject matter and the national debate that it has caused makes it a good topic of conversation for this blog. Plus, I don’t think there is any credible cinephile out there who would argue that Fincher isn’t an auteur. And that is one of the things this blog does, it discusses the films of our greatest auteurs.

The main and most contentious debate surrounding Gone Girl is the film’s gender politics (warning: spoilers ahead if you haven’t seen the film). Based on the best-selling novel by Gillian Flynn, it tells the story of Amy and Nick Dunne, a perfect-looking couple from New York whose marriage goes sour after moving to Missouri. After learning his wife has disappeared and perhaps murdered on the morning of their fifth wedding anniversary, Nick becomes the prime suspect and the focus of an excruciating media witch hunt. But we then learn that Amy has in fact faked her own kidnapping and murder in order to punish Nick for his affair with a younger woman.

Throughout the film, Amy lays waste with any man that comes across her with false accusations of pregnancy, domestic abuse and rape.

So is Amy a feminist hero who is using her power as a woman to get back at the men who have emotionally neglected her? Or is she the embodiment of the worst kind of stereotype of psychotic women who make up allegations of rape and abuse and even commit murder?

I would argue that it’s neither. I especially disagree with the theory that the film is sexist. Amy does not do the things she does because she’s a woman; she does it because she’s a psychopath. Amy is not meant to be a literal representation of all women. The same way that other cinematic psychos like Norman Bates and Hannibal Lecter were not meant to be a representation of all men.

Maria Santic, a junior who minors in Women’s Studies at City College in New York agrees. “Why do all women on television and film have to be perfect saints? Women are extremely complex creatures,” she says. “I think Amy Dunne is the most three-dimensional female character I’ve seen in any film this year.”

Santic thinks that we do a disservice to female characters if they’re all portrayed as inherently good. “Amy wasn’t just in the kitchen being the supportive, devoted wife to the male protagonist; she was actually running the film’s narrative,” she says. “Nowadays you hardly ever see that on film.”

Santic points to an article in the New Republic by Becca Rothfeld in which she argues that Amy is a fascinating throwback to the femme fatale archetype of the Film Noir genre that was very popular in the 1940’s. Ironically, this is a decade in which female characters actually had more agency than they do in today’s films. In that article, Rothfeld compares Amy to the grandmother of all femme fatales, Phyllis Dietrichson of the 1944 classic, Double Indemnity.

I would also compare Amy to another intriguing archetype: the male anti-hero that we see on cable television today. Like Tony Soprano, Donald Draper and Walter White; Amy Dunne is a protagonist who does morally reprehensible things while also still maintaining the audience’s sympathy. The only difference is that Amy does it in high heels, and that shouldn’t be held against her.

David Fincher’s Gone Girl has hit the cultural zeitgeist. It has been the subject of more think pieces and op-eds than perhaps any film this year. And although not really an “indie” film, the timeliness of the film’s subject matter and the national debate that it has caused makes it a good topic of conversation for this blog. Plus, I don’t think there is any credible cinephile out there who would argue that Fincher isn’t an auteur. And that is one of the things this blog does, it discusses the films of our greatest auteurs.

The main and most contentious debate surrounding Gone Girl is the film’s gender politics (warning: spoilers ahead if you haven’t seen the film). Based on the best-selling novel by Gillian Flynn, it tells the story of Amy and Nick Dunne, a perfect-looking couple from New York whose marriage goes sour after moving to Missouri. After learning his wife has disappeared and perhaps murdered on the morning of their fifth wedding anniversary, Nick becomes the prime suspect and the focus of an excruciating media witch hunt. But we then learn that Amy has in fact faked her own kidnapping and murder in order to punish Nick for his affair with a younger woman.

Throughout the film, Amy lays waste with any man that comes across her with false accusations of pregnancy, domestic abuse and rape.

So is Amy a feminist hero who is using her power as a woman to get back at the men who have emotionally neglected her? Or is she the embodiment of the worst kind of stereotype of psychotic women who make up allegations of rape and abuse and even commit murder?

I would argue that it’s neither. I especially disagree with the theory that the film is sexist. Amy does not do the things she does because she’s a woman; she does it because she’s a psychopath. Amy is not meant to be a literal representation of all women. The same way that other cinematic psychos like Norman Bates and Hannibal Lecter were not meant to be a representation of all men.

Maria Santic, a junior who minors in Women’s Studies at City College in New York agrees. “Why do all women on television and film have to be perfect saints? Women are extremely complex creatures,” she says. “I think Amy Dunne is the most three-dimensional female character I’ve seen in any film this year.”

Santic thinks that we do a disservice to female characters if they’re all portrayed as inherently good. “Amy wasn’t just in the kitchen being the supportive, devoted wife to the male protagonist; she was actually running the film’s narrative,” she says. “Nowadays you hardly ever see that on film.”

Santic points to an article in the New Republic by Becca Rothfeld in which she argues that Amy is a fascinating throwback to the femme fatale archetype of the Film Noir genre that was very popular in the 1940’s. Ironically, this is a decade in which female characters actually had more agency than they do in today’s films. In that article, Rothfeld compares Amy to the grandmother of all femme fatales, Phyllis Dietrichson of the 1944 classic, Double Indemnity.

I would also compare Amy to another intriguing archetype: the male anti-hero that we see on cable television today. Like Tony Soprano, Donald Draper and Walter White; Amy Dunne is a protagonist who does morally reprehensible things while also still maintaining the audience’s sympathy. The only difference is that Amy does it in high heels, and that shouldn’t be held against her.

David Fincher’s Gone Girl has hit the cultural zeitgeist. It has been the subject of more think pieces and op-eds than perhaps any film this year. And although not really an “indie” film, the timeliness of the film’s subject matter and the national debate that it has caused makes it a good topic of conversation for this blog. Plus, I don’t think there is any credible cinephile out there who would argue that Fincher isn’t an auteur. And that is one of the things this blog does, it discusses the films of our greatest auteurs.

The main and most contentious debate surrounding Gone Girl is the film’s gender politics (warning: spoilers ahead if you haven’t seen the film). Based on the best-selling novel by Gillian Flynn, it tells the story of Amy and Nick Dunne, a perfect-looking couple from New York whose marriage goes sour after moving to Missouri. After learning his wife has disappeared and perhaps murdered on the morning of their fifth wedding anniversary, Nick becomes the prime suspect and the focus of an excruciating media witch hunt. But we then learn that Amy has in fact faked her own kidnapping and murder in order to punish Nick for his affair with a younger woman.

Throughout the film, Amy lays waste with any man that comes across her with false accusations of pregnancy, domestic abuse and rape.

So is Amy a feminist hero who is using her power as a woman to get back at the men who have emotionally neglected her? Or is she the embodiment of the worst kind of stereotype of psychotic women who make up allegations of rape and abuse and even commit murder?

I would argue that it’s neither. I especially disagree with the theory that the film is sexist. Amy does not do the things she does because she’s a woman; she does it because she’s a psychopath. Amy is not meant to be a literal representation of all women. The same way that other cinematic psychos like Norman Bates and Hannibal Lecter were not meant to be a representation of all men.

Maria Santic, a junior who minors in Women’s Studies at City College in New York agrees. “Why do all women on television and film have to be perfect saints? Women are extremely complex creatures,” she says. “I think Amy Dunne is the most three-dimensional female character I’ve seen in any film this year.”

Santic thinks that we do a disservice to female characters if they’re all portrayed as inherently good. “Amy wasn’t just in the kitchen being the supportive, devoted wife to the male protagonist; she was actually running the film’s narrative,” she says. “Nowadays you hardly ever see that on film.”

Santic points to an article in the New Republic by Becca Rothfeld in which she argues that Amy is a fascinating throwback to the femme fatale archetype of the Film Noir genre that was very popular in the 1940’s. Ironically, this is a decade in which female characters actually had more agency than they do in today’s films. In that article, Rothfeld compares Amy to the grandmother of all femme fatales, Phyllis Dietrichson of the 1944 classic, Double Indemnity.

I would also compare Amy to another intriguing archetype: the male anti-hero that we see on cable television today. Like Tony Soprano, Donald Draper and Walter White; Amy Dunne is a protagonist who does morally reprehensible things while also still maintaining the audience’s sympathy. The only difference is that Amy does it in high heels, and that shouldn’t be held against her.

https://blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/vanishedharlem/

Trinidad “Trini” Abraham opened up the Lexington Social, East Harlem’s wine and tapas bar in 2009 with his two brothers and business partners, Justino and Miguel Abraham.

The outside of Lexington Social Wine Bar, on 103rd and Lexington Avenue.
The Lexington Social was the first “upscale” restaurant/wine bar to open up in the area, at the start of East Harlem’s gentrification emergence. Located on Lexington Avenue between East 103rd and 104th street, Lexington Social is home to Spanish Harlem’s largest variety of wines imported country and worldwide, with seasonal tapas served in a dimly lit, romantic setting. It’s 28 person seating gives it a charming and quaint atmosphere for a quiet night in uptown Manhattan. Smaller tables are arranged against the wall, and two communal tables are placed in the center of the restaurant, just feet away from its 10 foot wide bar with an open kitchen, and its large selection of hard liquors and beers on the wall. The walls are decorated with each type of wine they have available, a list so long it would take weeks to memorize. Lexington Harlem remains as Spanish Harlem’s only place to go for a relaxing atmosphere to enjoy exotic wines paired with delicious tapas

The Lexington Social thrives as one of Spanish Harlem’s most popular “must visit” locations according to several travel and lifestyle blogs.
http://gothamist.com/2013/08/12/a_food_drink_tour_of_spanish_harlem.php#photo-1
The patrons that frequent the cozy 28-seat wine bar are predominantly regulars to the bar, or locals in the area.

Trinidad Abrams, owner, stands on the side of the bar inside Lexington Social.

Abraham, who has lived in Spanish Harlem for his whole life, opened up Lexington Social in May of 2009 on Lexington Avenue between 103rd and 104th street, three blocks from the house he has lived in for almost two decades. Lexington Social’s grand opening elicited mixed reactions, as it was just one of the many sudden changes East Harlem saw in a short amount of time, in the midst of all the gentrification underway. At the same time many residents of Spanish Harlem were being evicted and displaced out of the neighborhood some have known as home their entire life, construction began on multi-million dollar condominiums. It was clear a whole new era was dawning on East Harlem. Just like the buildings and businesses, there is a clearly visible and transparent shift in the population because of gentrification too. Everyone sees it, no one denies it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/nyregion/06harlem.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
This article was posted in the New York Times in 2010, reporting on the population shift as it was happening.

Abraham, pictured below, is of Mexican descent. “Just a few years ago, it was not like this. It was mostly Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, then the Blacks, then the Asians, and then the Whites. There were not a lot of White people at all, you never saw them uptown. Now it almost half Spanish and half White.”

Trinidad Abrahams stands behind his bar in the Lexington Social.

Because it has become known that Spanish Harlem is now more popular of a location to live in, landlords and real estate agents are free to charge more for rent. This probably couldn’t have been able to happen five or more years ago, but they can now afford this option because If current tenants disagree with the spike in rent and choose to move out, Spanish Harlem has been such a “trendy” neighborhood on the up-and-up, that the current residents will be replaced with ease by new prospective apartment hunters eager to take their place.

http://streeteasy.com/area/east-harlem
Found in the article: “Once a strictly working class neighborhood, the area has recently seen a wave of young professionals and more affluent families who have been lured by affordable co-ops and amenity laden new condos, as well as quick access to the rest of Manhattan.”

Abraham believes the rising rent draws in one crowd, while at the same time pushing another out. Spanish Harlem borders one of the most expensive neighborhoods in Manhattan, the Upper East Side, so those living in the 80’s and 90’s streets are moving up at a lower cost, but still staying in a neighborhood they believe is popular while still relatively cheap. “The rent is too expensive now for the poor people living here, but it’s cheaper than the rent for people living in the 90 streets a few blocks away. The rent is higher for the people living here now, so they can’t live here anymore and are moving out. But the people living downtown are moving up because the rent is still cheaper for them.”

Abraham notes that the Lexington Social’s patrons are predominantly White, so gentrification better serves his business because it caters to the population that is moving in. His restaurant, as well as many, if not all businesses found in East Harlem is one of the first things afflicted by gentrification and what gentrification entails for the fate of the neighborhood.

Trinidad “Trini” Abraham opened up the Lexington Social, East Harlem’s wine and tapas bar in 2009 with his two brothers and business partners, Justino and Miguel Abraham.

The outside of Lexington Social Wine Bar, on 103rd and Lexington Avenue.
The Lexington Social was the first “upscale” restaurant/wine bar to open up in the area, at the start of East Harlem’s gentrification emergence. Located on Lexington Avenue between East 103rd and 104th street, Lexington Social is home to Spanish Harlem’s largest variety of wines imported country and worldwide, with seasonal tapas served in a dimly lit, romantic setting. It’s 28 person seating gives it a charming and quaint atmosphere for a quiet night in uptown Manhattan. Smaller tables are arranged against the wall, and two communal tables are placed in the center of the restaurant, just feet away from its 10 foot wide bar with an open kitchen, and its large selection of hard liquors and beers on the wall. The walls are decorated with each type of wine they have available, a list so long it would take weeks to memorize. Lexington Harlem remains as Spanish Harlem’s only place to go for a relaxing atmosphere to enjoy exotic wines paired with delicious tapas

The Lexington Social thrives as one of Spanish Harlem’s most popular “must visit” locations according to several travel and lifestyle blogs.

http://gothamist.com/2013/08/12/a_food_drink_tour_of_spanish_harlem.php#photo-1

The patrons that frequent the cozy 28-seat wine bar are predominantly regulars to the bar, or locals in the area.

Trinidad Abrams, owner, stands on the side of the bar inside Lexington Social.

Abraham, who has lived in Spanish Harlem for his whole life, opened up Lexington Social in May of 2009 on Lexington Avenue between 103rd and 104th street, three blocks from the house he has lived in for almost two decades. Lexington Social’s grand opening elicited mixed reactions, as it was just one of the many sudden changes East Harlem saw in a short amount of time, in the midst of all the gentrification underway. At the same time many residents of Spanish Harlem were being evicted and displaced out of the neighborhood some have known as home their entire life, construction began on multi-million dollar condominiums. It was clear a whole new era was dawning on East Harlem. Just like the buildings and businesses, there is a clearly visible and transparent shift in the population because of gentrification too. Everyone sees it, no one denies it.

This article was posted in the New York Times in 2010, reporting on the population shift as it was happening.

Abraham, pictured below, is of Mexican descent. “Just a few years ago, it was not like this. It was mostly Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, then the Blacks, then the Asians, and then the Whites. There were not a lot of White people at all, you never saw them uptown. Now it almost half Spanish and half White.”

Trinidad Abrahams stands behind his bar in the Lexington Social.

Because it has become known that Spanish Harlem is now more popular of a location to live in, landlords and real estate agents are free to charge more for rent. This probably couldn’t have been able to happen five or more years ago, but they can now afford this option because If current tenants disagree with the spike in rent and choose to move out, Spanish Harlem has been such a “trendy” neighborhood on the up-and-up, that the current residents will be replaced with ease by new prospective apartment hunters eager to take their place.

http://streeteasy.com/area/east-harlem

Found in the article: “Once a strictly working class neighborhood, the area has recently seen a wave of young professionals and more affluent families who have been lured by affordable co-ops and amenity laden new condos, as well as quick access to the rest of Manhattan.”

Abraham believes the rising rent draws in one crowd, while at the same time pushing another out. Spanish Harlem borders one of the most expensive neighborhoods in Manhattan, the Upper East Side, so those living in the 80’s and 90’s streets are moving up at a lower cost, but still staying in a neighborhood they believe is popular while still relatively cheap. “The rent is too expensive now for the poor people living here, but it’s cheaper than the rent for people living in the 90 streets a few blocks away. The rent is higher for the people living here now, so they can’t live here anymore and are moving out. But the people living downtown are moving up because the rent is still cheaper for them.”

Abraham notes that the Lexington Social’s patrons are predominantly White, so gentrification better serves his business because it caters to the population that is moving in. His restaurant, as well as many, if not all businesses found in East Harlem is one of the first things afflicted by gentrification and what gentrification entails for the fate of the neighborhood.

Gentrification- What is it? How did it start?

Gentrification, in an attempt to summarize an entire socioeconomic trend with the potential to afflict thousands of residents within these neighborhoods into an objective single sentence, is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as:

Definition of GENTRIFICATION

Gentrification- What is it? How did it start?

Gentrification, in an attempt to summarize an entire socioeconomic trend with the potential to afflict thousands of residents within these neighborhoods into an objective single sentence, is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as:

Definition of GENTRIFICATION

https://blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/powerplaycoach/