The Paw Print

A news publication created by Baruch's College Now high school journalism class

Commentary

Gentrification with Businesses

by Leave a Comment

Michael Garcia 08/03/18

 

It is no surprise that there has been a distinct relationship between real estate and neighborhood changes within the last few years.

 

This phenomenon is called gentrification, which is the process where a neighborhood is renovated so that people who are affluent will want to live in them.

 

At first glance, gentrification may seem like a positive thing for small businesses. Most people believe that people with higher incomes coming into the neighborhood could result in profit for business, but this is not the case.

 

When a neighborhood gets upgraded, rental rates for businesses in that area go through the roof. This makes it impossible for small business owners to turn a profit and continue doing business in the neighborhood.

 

Rent prices have increased 1.2 percent from June to July for NYC as a whole, and is up 1.7 percent in comparison to last year, according to a report by the New York Rent Report.

 

The data does not show the true effect of rising rent, though. The number of black-owned businesses in NYC, for example, declined from 2007 to 2012 as many gentrifying communities have undergone economic changes. According to a report called The New Geography of Jobs: A Blueprint for Strengthening NYC neighborhoods, in 2007 African Americans owned 13 percent of all businesses in the Bronx and five percent in Queens. In 2012, those figures were down to six percent and three percent, respectively.

 

Evidently, people are going out of business as a result of gentrification. With that, store owners have no revenue to rely on to live in the area as well. Comptroller Stringer says in a statement, “The increasing rents and economic distress that accompany gentrification are challenges that we as a city must confront.” Without any money to survive, what are store owners supposed to do?

 Some businesses being closed are located in East Village and Tribeca. New York’s gentrified neighborhoods has raised rents in these areas to the point where many people from low-income families can no longer gain profit, resulting in homelessness, or forced moving to a new neighborhood. This is not acceptable at all.

 

The implications of this affect people who don’t own equity or property too. Lack of affordable housing for anyone in a newly gentrified area leads to a loss of diversity in residents and loss of historic structures to the people who once lived there. It isn’t hard to notice that newly introduced amenities in neighborhoods are to benefit the rich, who are mostly people of white backgrounds and hinder the poor, which is stereotypically the minority.

 

Some examples of this are hypergentrification, where the culmination of bigger, elite companies take the spots of less wealthy ones. This has been seen with companies such as Starbucks and McDonald’s. According to a data report, there are 210 Starbucks in Manhattan, slightly more than six per square mile. In contrast, McDonald’s has 74 stores in Manhattan.

 

As a result of gentrification, neighborhoods have lost cafés, theaters, shoe stores, toy stores and gift shops. Tribeca, for example as documented in the Tribeca Tribune, “Many Tribeca residents complain that neighborhood-friendly stores seem to be vanishing before our eyes. Small businesses, aren’t just struggling — they are being targeted for assassination.”

Are Waste Transfer Stations Evidence of Environmental Racism?

by Leave a Comment

By Jeremy Williams

The New York City council held a meeting on Thursday where they made a step towards regulating waste transfer stations in neighborhoods across the city, after two people were killed by sanitation trucks in six months.

The City Council passed bill  0157-2018-C or the “Waste Equity Bill” which will divert trash from overburdened waste transfer stations which are usually located in low income or minority dense districts. Councilman Reynoso sponsored the bill, He believes addresses environmental racism which he referred to as an “insidious method, to which historically disadvantaged communities are made to suffer because of the color of their skin.”

 Reynoso represents District 34, encompasing North Brooklyn and Ridgewood, Queens which has the highest concentration of waste transfer stations within the city.

Before the City Council passed this bill, 72 year-old Leon Clark was killed after being struck by a private sanitation truck in the Bronx, on April 27th. This bill targets dangerous sanitation trucks that recklessly speed through neighborhoods posing a risk to elderly residents. Councilman Reynoso asked the council, “How could a city that prides itself on progressive politics… possibly allow a system like this to exist.”

21-year-old Mouctar Diallo was also killed by a sanitation truck in the Bronx, on November 7th, 2017.

Councilwoman Adams, who represents the 28th District said, “The bill has admirable goals.” However she still struggled with it saying, “While this bill addresses capacity reformation… conspicuously absent are the persistent issues of air pollution, truck traffic, foul odors, and other matters that affect my quality of life and the quality of life of the people in Southeast Queens.” Adams, who did vote in favor of the bill, said that in the future she hopes for a more collaborative effort.

The councilmembers hope to approve a bill in the future that not only tackles increased truck traffic but attacks all of the negatives of waste transfer stations including poor air quality, which is especially harmful to people with asthma. Woodhull Hospital, which serves the 34th district has the highest rate of asthma related admissions across the entire city.

Expect a bill that will bring stronger regulations for waste transfer stations and private sanitation companies in the near future.

Do High Prison Phone Call Costs Make Phone Companies the Judge, Jury, and Executioner?

by Leave a Comment

By Jeremy Williams

 

Do High Prison Phone Call Costs Make Phone Companies the Judge, Jury, and Executioner?

 

The 6th amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to a lawyer and a fair trial. However, many people who are sent to jail can’t afford to keep in contact with their legal counsel. This creates a system where the right to a fair trial is dependent on your finances. The protections promised under the Constitution are not be applicable to those who are not wealthy.

 

If  a family cannot afford to pay for a phone call from jail, they most likely cannot afford to bail an incarcerated family member out. As a result many are forced to sit in jail until their trial. However, when the trial comes, the defendant and the  lawyer aren’t properly prepared because they couldn’t afford to have necessary communication and planning. The chances of someone losing their trail are dramatically increased and now they are serving time for a crime they did not commit.

 

Public defenders are often criticized for having too many cases and not enough resources, but when you consider that the client can’t afford to talk to their lawyer, the idea of a fair trial becomes an unattainable dream.

 

Many inmates can’t turn to their families to advocate for them, because their family members can’t afford an increased phone bill or an extra expense.

A phone call from an inmate can run up to $17 for 15 minutes. That averages out to $1.13 a minute, and that’s if the inmate is being held close to their attorney and family. That isn’t the case for many families because most inmates are transferred out of their home area.

 

Does this mean all communication is stopped with your loved one because of they have been arrested?

Most people don’t have a choice in answering this question, because their financial situation has already predetermined this for them. This is especially the case if the breadwinner in the household is arrested and the financial burden is shifted to young adults or other family members who might not be capable of providing for an entire family. This forces working class families to choose between talking to a family member or keeping the lights on.

 

Last year, the Supreme Court repealed a regulation passed in 2015 that allowed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which regulates most methods of communication including phone calls, to cap the costs of phone calls from prison. Mignon Clyburn, the former commissioner for the FCC described the rising costs of these phone calls as a civil rights issue that is preventing 2.7 million children in America from communicating with an incarcerated parent. The costs of phone calls create an inequality between the wealthy and the poor. People arrested from both groups have a very different prison experience and the families that are affected, experience it differently as well.

The prison population stands at around 2.2 million people. The prison system is supposed to rehabilitate those 2.2 million people. Instead the government is using prisoners as pawns to profit off millions of hard working families who want to have contact with their loved ones.

Why the Modern Day Fanfic Author Deserves Acceptance (Like Shakespeare)

by Leave a Comment

By Alyssa Chen

Fanfiction is nothing new. It’s been around since historical times – even Shakespeare wrote fanfiction – but for some reason modern day society has turned it into a shameful, unspeakable topic.

In the past few years, fanfic writing has been on the rise. On July 20, Archive of Our Own (AO3), a nonprofit site for fanfiction, reached 4 million fanfics. Fan lingo such as the word “ship” even became a trend at one point. But do fanfiction and fanfic writers really deserve this newfound appreciation?

Some authors, like Anne Rice, are bothered by fanfics. Rice sent a message for fans on her official site: “It upsets me terribly to even think about fan fiction with my characters.” Other authors, such as Diana Gabaldon and Robin Hobb, think fanfics are unoriginal and theft of an author’s ideas. If a fan wants to write, they say, then why does the fan refuse to make original characters, a new world, and a new plot but instead take ideas from published works?

Let’s take a step back and define fanfiction. Fanfiction is a work that a fan creates for other fans using characters from a specific series, TV show, anime, etc. It is a way to keep a series alive long after it has ended. It is a way to promote an ongoing series. It is a way for fans to share crazy ideas about their favorite characters and read about another fan’s crazier ideas.

It is not that fanfic writers are incapable of creating their own original fiction, but that they don’t want the other writer’s story to end. A fan’s passion for a series drives her to expand on the world the characters have already experienced. A fan’s love for the characters in a series prompts her to imagine ‘what if’ scenarios starring said characters.

After years of being underappreciated, it is high time fanfic writers be acknowledged for the effort, courage, and creativity they expend on the making and sharing of their works.

Remember Shakespeare? The fanfic writer from centuries ago whose works are read in classrooms today? One of his most famous works, Romeo and Juliet, is a fanfic of Arthur Brooke’s The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet. The plot was hardly Shakespeare’s own, yet we still celebrate the play and perform it to this day. Why do people today celebrate sixteenth century fanfic writers, yet turn up their noses at modern day fanfic writers?

Not all fanfics are unoriginal and cringeworthy. The characters and the setting may be the same as in the original, but the writing style and the plot can be uniquely the fanfic writer’s. Coming up with a new plot, putting familiar characters into unfamiliar situations while keeping them in character, exploring underdeveloped relationships – these are a fanfic writer’s challenges. And facing those challenges head-on requires the same amount of effort and creativity, or even more, than making a work of original fiction.

Sharing a fanfic for other fans to read also demands a lot of courage. It’s difficult to publicly post something that may or may not be taken well – after all, many authors don’t like getting flamed. Putting up a work of fanfiction is an invitation for others to comment, judge, and criticize. No matter how bad the work might be, the author deserves respect for gathering the courage to post her fic in the first place.

Although there are plenty of writers who litter their works with grammatical errors and wish fulfillment author inserts (when an author makes herself the main character of a story to live out her fantasies), there are quite a few talented writers on fanfic websites. Several writers of fanfics were able to become published authors, including E. L. James (Fifty Shades trilogy) and Marissa Meyer (The Lunar Chronicles). James’ book Fifty Shades of Grey began as a Twilight fanfic with the name Master of the Universe, which was immensely popular with the fan base. In 2011, James took down the story from ff.net and had it revamped for publication. Both James and Meyer support fanfiction. According to Yahoo News, E. L. James said in a statement about fanfiction, “I’m immensely flattered, and it’s humbling to know my work is inspiring others to write.”

Society’s stance on fanfiction has undergone a lot of development over the years. People, particularly newer authors, have become more accepting of fanfiction. This marks a shift in the literary world. It’s a change where some fanfic authors are recognized for their talent, respected for their writing, and in some cases even given opportunities to get published. Fanfiction was and still is a major stepping stone for many young writers, so let’s keep the practice alive for many more years to come.

Israeli Nation-State Bill: Much Ado About Nothing

by Leave a Comment

By: Russell Stern

For the past week, there has been a heated controversy surrounding the Israeli Nation-State bill, which the Israeli parliament passed into law on July 19, 2018. Almost immediately after the bill was passed, Israel’s sworn enemies loudly denounced it as discriminatory against the country’s minorities. But all of this commotion is just another attempt to revive the slanderous accusation that Zionism is racism, a long discredited anti-Israel smear.

The criticism came from the usual suspects: the New York Times, whose political articles are very hostile toward Israeli policy, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement, which seeks the elimination of the Jewish state, and Arab members of the Knesset, Israel’s legislative body.

Arab Knesset member Ahmed Tibi, a former aide to Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat, harshly declared that the bill will cause, “the death of democracy,” in Israel. Other opposition members instantly joined Tibi in his condemnation of the bill, screaming, “Apartheid!” They blatantly accused the law of being discriminatory and racist.

But the bill does not discriminate against Israeli Arabs or other minorities in any way, shape or form. It does not revoke civil rights enjoyed by minority groups in Israel. It does not prevent them from practicing their own religion, running for political office, voting in Israeli elections, or having access to Israeli universities. Furthermore, the Nation-State law does not supersede the Israeli Declaration of Independence of 1948, which ensures, “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.” In fact, it was only meant to reaffirm Israel as the state of the Jewish people, and declare it the historical homeland of Jews worldwide.

The bill also reinforced Jerusalem being the official capital of Israel, and “Hatikvah” being the state’s national anthem. Not only this, but the law stressed the importance of certain Jewish holidays in Israel, such as Independence Day, Memorial Day, and Holocaust Remembrance Day. In short, this bill was not meant to have any practical impact; it was only passed into law to send a message to Israel’s foes that the Jewish state is here to stay.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the bill as, “a defining moment in the history of Zionism.” Zionism is defined as the movement for the re-establishment, development, and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. Considering the horrifying fact that six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, and that anti-semitism has existed for nearly 2,000 years, the Israeli government certainly had a right to pass this bill, and their reason for doing so is clear. The Jewish people originated in the land of Israel. And they have been there since the 10th century B.C.E. They were there before anyone else.

Critics, however, argue that the bill treats Arabs in Israel as second-class citizens. Specifically, they object to the clause of the bill which states, “The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.” However, this argument is deeply flawed because Israel was specifically created and recognized as a Jewish state by the United Nations in 1948. Of course Jews have the exclusive right to self-determination in Israel, because Israel is a Jewish state.

Critics also oppose parts of the bill which state that Hebrew is the official language of Israel and that Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel. However, the Palestinian Authority’s basic law and draft constitution includes clauses and articles that are very similar, and there has been no criticism of that document. Specifically, according to Chapter One of the 1995 Basic Law draft by the PLO, “The Palestinian people are the source of all authority which shall be exercised, through the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.” Also, Chapter Three of the draft states, “The Arabic language shall be the official language of Palestine.”

And not only that, but according to Article Two of The Constitution of Jordan, “Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official language.” Article One of the constitution states, “The people of Jordan form a part of the Arab nation, and its system of government is parliamentary with a hereditary monarchy.” Egypt’s constitution proclaims that it is “an Arab republic” and “part of the Muslim world.” And the formal name for Iran is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

It is interesting that similar laws in the dozens of Muslim-ruled countries have not received any criticism whatsoever. But when the world’s only Jewish country attempts to define itself as a Jewish nation, it is viciously attacked for doing so. The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this double-standard is that much of the world is opposed to the existence of a Jewish state, no matter how tiny.

Caution: Kids on the Web

by Leave a Comment

By: Lila Chen

A child on the internet is a target for online predators.
Kids on the internet are susceptible to dangers online.

 

“They’re just like kids on the internet.”

Well, in this day and age, they’re probably not like kids, they are kids.

 

Social networking businesses like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are booming— so much so that Facebook plans to remove age restrictions on users, if not for the federal law banning the collection of data on children.

 

However, this decision, would not make as significant an impact on children as many of us may think.

 

Getting an account on these popular social media platforms is undoubtedly very easy. Lying about one’s age on these platforms is even easier. Birthdates identifies the users’ ages. If kids lie about their birthdates, sites cannot confirm if their information is true. This gives kids access to age restricted sites like Vine and parts of YouTube.

 

According to The Guardian, surveys conducted by The Advertising Standards Authority showed that over 80 percent of kids between ages 11 and 15 years old lie about their age on the internet. 40 percent of kids also claim to be over 18 years old on the web.

 

With so many kids lying to access things they should not, there should be tighter regulations around age restrictions on social media sites. If an independent organization like the Advertising Standards Authority is capable of tracking down children who lie about their age, the owners of these media sites should be able to as well.

 

While sites like Instagram and Facebook allow fellow users to report on underaged members, this is not enough to stop kids from violating the age limit because they can create new accounts to replace the old ones that are blocked.

 

Unlike Facebook and Instagram, Twitter has made no major attempts to enforce its rule barring users under 13 prior to this year. In fact, users didn’t have to state their birthdates to create an account. Consequently, there is no definite way for the site to know who is underaged.

 

This is why Twitter struggled to uproot underaged users when a new law threatened to fine media outlets with members under 13. Twitter’s attempts were ineffective as users who were over the age limit were also locked from their accounts. However, the site has continued with its method of locking accounts despite its lack of success.

 

Giving underaged users access to social media sites exposes them to many things early— things that are not necessarily appropriate for their age.

 

Vine, which had an age limit of 12 and up, was flooded with “pornographic clips,” in 2013, NPR reported. Even with Vine’s new age limit of 17 years old, kids who intentionally lie about their age will still have access to inappropriate content.

 

Early exposure to age-restricted content can have many harmful effects on underaged children. A 2012 study conducted in Dartmouth College, connected “movie sexual exposure” to sexual activity for children. It revealed that early exposure to sexual content increases the probability of kids having careless sex sooner in their life. This can cause not only teen pregnancy, but many additional health risks.

 

It is not just exposure to sexual content that put kids in danger. Violence on the internet is not new. Without stronger regulation on age restrictions, kids will continue to be exposed to it. In turn they will think that violence is acceptable— even cool— and become violent themselves.

 

Parents worry about this as social media sites make things more accessible to kids on the internet. Without stronger regulation of rules like age restrictions, kids growing up in this generation will wrongfully have a shorter childhood than prior generations.

We are the Youth and We Speak for the Trees

by Leave a Comment

By: Sage Moccia

“Children are the future” is the platitude selected to pressure the young into making a change, but it is also a solid point. Throughout the centuries, human-related climate change has been noticeable, but recently the consequences have grown far beyond our dismissive tendencies.

According to NASA, from 1900-2000, Earth’s average temperature increased by two degrees Fahrenheit. While two degrees might not seem critical, Earth’s average climate had been stable for centuries prior. A minute change in heat will result in huge dilemmas to come.

Because some don’t see it affecting them anytime soon, or they just don’t buy it, many individuals do not take a stand against climate change. However, negative shifts from climate change are self-evident in our everyday lives, such as more intense heat waves, increased precipitation, and worse to come hurricanes.

But kids around the country aren’t standing for it. Teenagers have been taking a stand by conducting youth-led movements and marches to spread the much-needed word about encouraging change. While they may seem to be working on borrowed time, giving up is not an option.

Zero Hour is a youth-led, climate oriented, organization created by 16-year-old Jamie Margolin to speak up for the Earth. She and five other fighting activists have spent the last year creating this movement. On July 21, 2018, Zero Hour protested at the National Mall in Washington. They’ve also met with 40 federal lawmakers to discuss their platforms.

Young activists bring an advantage to physical movements that common marches don’t have. Bringing people so young to fight for such significant matters also brings more merit to the causes themselves. Adolescents now are the ones who will have to live with the consequences of climate change within the next ten years, and then continue to pass those consequences down to generations to come. This is not a trait that we will let be prominent on the face of the future.

This is not the only youth-led movement with fiery appetites to improve something. A couple others have taken the stage and melded with Zero Hour to show the adults in charge that we won’t stand for this.

The Youth Progressive Policy Group works with a number of causes, but most recently they have been working with problems concerning climate change. They meet with political figures and try to urge them to advocate for bills to alter environmental conditions. The group’s latest meeting promoted reducing carbon emission within the world’s atmosphere. The leader of The Youth Progressive Policy Group, Sylvana Widman, has concluded that currently, fossil fuel emissions are doing the most harm, so that takes priority. The Youth Progressive Policy Group continues to fight and march at every opportunity possible.

We can’t expect to get what we want without demanding it. The youth must come together and remind the adults that we don’t have much time left.

This is our planet. This is our home. How far will we let this go?

‘This is America’: Satirical Commentary or Subliminal Warning?

by Leave a Comment

Childish Gambino a.k.a Donald Glover

Despite the early devotion of white patriarchy to construct an ideal country, the topic of equality has always been a difficult thing to manage in the US. With women and African-Americans seeking the privileges white men have, the demand for equality has slowly, but surely been met over time.

However, racism and discrimination still linger in the world today. To counteract this, many movements started along with creations such as Donald Glover’s “This is America” released on May 5,2018 on Youtube. This satirical criticism of America’s tendencies analyzes what America has come to.

Donald, otherwise known as Childish Gambino, has used his fame to create a song that not only embodies the harsh reality of America, but uses it to help people focus on important subjects such as racism, police brutality, and gun violence. This is done through Donald’s nihilistic view on the world. He expresses this view through the choreography and lyricism of the music video.

One example is in the video where it begins in a very light tone, with repeated lyrics while Gambino contorts his body towards the man playing guitar. Donald dons gold chains, raggedy pants and an untrimmed beard. This alludes mostly to how slaves looked. His sporadic movements into smooth movements, induce a feeling of discomfort that African-Americans feel living in America while police brutality and racism exists.

At the 0:53 mark, the character Gambino plays pulls out a firearm from his back pocket and shoots the man playing guitar. This immediately catches the viewer off-guard. It completely juxtaposes the tone of the beginning of the video into something much darker. The pose he does while this occurs is believed to be reminiscent of a Jim Crow drawing.

Right after the first killing, Gambino places the gun he used carefully into the arms of a young African-American youth holding a red cloth. Two more young adult African-Americans then drag the dead body away from the camera’s perspective. This entails that whoever is doing the killing, which I believe to be America itself holds guns to be of more importance than the deaths they cause. America consistently has protected the rights of guns despite the amount of destruction they are able to do and as shown via the dragging. The youth of the country are then forced to deal with the burden and clean up the messes America makes.

Something really important to take note of after each killing Gambino is responsible for is that there are no consequences. Taking the character of America as a whole, it shows the power it holds in creating destruction and never facing no repercussions in return.

The crimes he commits result in no consequences, making him invulnerable and above the law. This is because Gambino represents white America. In the video, white America is free to kill any black man, woman, or child. It is the grim surrealism that African-American men and women have to face while living in an America where white men control almost everything happening in it.

Also showing what America has come to is the lyric, “you just a black man in the world you just a barcode”. This line references how people gain profit from barcodes. They scan them with the gun and then pull the trigger. It represents that no matter how much wealth or power an African-American may possess, white America will find a way to profit off of you whether it be through music, media, and more.

“This is America” pays homage to the insolence of white America and how the country’s foundation is built on systematic oppression of other races. We all live in the same nation, yet discrimination occurs no matter who you are. Gambino perfectly depicts this rift between races by showing the targeting of black Americans by eloquently orchestrated choreography and lyrics. The country’s alarming rates of inequality is why it will eventually implode.

 

Is ‘Thirteen Reasons Why’ Safe for Teens to Watch?

by Leave a Comment

Thirteen Reasons Why is a Netflix original series in which a teenage girl, Hannah Baker, commits suicide and leaves behind 13 tapes for each person she deemed responsible.

The producer of the series, Selena Gomez, has battled with both depression and anxiety in her life.

On one hand, the series is very gruesome and has trigger warnings for almost all episodes. On the other, it is very eye opening and sparks discussion for taboo subjects that need to be discussed such as sexual assault, addiction, suicide, bullying, sexuality, gangs, criminals, the justice system, peer pressure, PTSD, anxiety, depression, mental disorders, relationships, friendships, grief, intervention, recovery, and racism. The show sheds light on these subjects by presenting them in a sort of in-your-face manner.

It is no secret that the episodes can be upsetting to some, but it is the viewer’s job to determine whether or not to keep watching as well as which episodes to skip (if any). The writers and producers of Thirteen Reasons Why have repeatedly advised both young and old viewers not to binge, but to take breaks between episodes.

Anyone below the age of 14, anyone with severe depression, victims of sexual assault experiencing PTSD, anyone who does not like serious topics discussed onscreen, anyone autistic, anyone homophobic, and/or anyone with severe anxiety, should not watch the show for their own safety.

Each season consists of 13 episodes and because there is a small amount of episodes and a large amount to discuss, many upsetting things, both verbal and visual, are packed into one episode. In the second episode of Beyond the Reasons, a piggyback series off Thirteen Reasons Why, the meanings behind the episodes and the purpose of scripting them the way the writers did was a major discussion. There were also professional psychologists on the writing team because the writers needed help to figure out what was okay to script and what was not.

Triggers were also discussed during Beyond the Reasons because copycat suicides are a risk. However, the creators were trying to open people’s eyes and get them to understand that there is absolutely “nothing glamorous about suicide” and it should never be seen as an option. Brian Yorkey, the series co-writer, said during an interview. He makes it known that Hannah’s death was portrayed as a painful experience and should not be repeated by anyone in any way.

The 13th episode of the 2nd season depicted a scene of an especially brutal sexual assault and a murder attempt. A character, Tyler Down was jumped then sexually assaulted in a school restroom with a mop by a group of guys on the baseball team. He then went home and gathered a few handheld weapons to put in a car before driving to the school with the intent of shooting up the dance. He’d never gotten a chance to because another character, Clay Jensen stood in front of Tyler’s gun and stopped him from entering the school. Tyler eventually surrendered after hearing Clay out.

A couple of obvious triggers in this episode are sexual assault and gun violence. Although these are concerning for viewers, there is a clear warning before the episode starts that states, “The following episode contains graphic depictions of sexual assault & drug abuse, which some viewers may find disturbing. It is intended for mature audiences. Viewer discretion is advised.”

Watching the show on Netflix will give viewers an opportunity to choose whether or not it’s in their best interests to continue watching. The show is safe for mature teens and adults that can handle the topics being depicted and discussed in the show, being that it is rated TV-MA.

However, it can be educational to watch but also worthwhile. In the first season, the story line is more of a mystery whereas the second season has more of a “law & order” story line. This eases the tension of the suicidal background and gives a more slightly entertaining side of the story to make it easier to watch while still taking in the information the way it should be.

Dunkirk Film Review

by Leave a Comment

 

 

For a movie about World War 2, Director Christopher Nolan’s ‘Dunkirk’ seems to lack actual combat.

 It depicts the historical events of the Battle of Dunkirk through a beautifully shot and composed series of scenes; (Nolan again used film for this movie rather than digital,) but with all the astonishing visuals and sound, the movie was at times incoherent. In addition to having a choppy feel throughout, ‘Dunkirk’ leaves out critical details about the battle, which would have greatly enhanced the film.

The Battle of Dunkirk: The defense and evacuation of British and Allied forces in Dunkirk, France from 26 May to 4 June 1940. With the German Army closing in on over 400,000 troops on all sides, the only option was to evacuate all soldiers to Britain, just 26 miles over the channel. However, since the water was too shallow for large navy vessels, hundreds of civilian boats came to the soldiers’ rescue from Britain, and in the end 330,000 troops were rescued.

The movie does a good job of documenting that last part, but it fails to show anything other than the British perspective; Canada, France, Poland, Belgium, and the Netherlands all had men on the beach as well. Furthermore, there were some 40,000 French troops left behind and forced to surrender to the Germans – ‘Dunkirk’ never once acknowledges this.

Other disappointing qualities in the movie are some meaningless dialogue, and unessential plot elements at times. Although the cast is filled with stars like Cillian Murphy, Tom Hardy, and Harry Styles; they are unable to save the movie from the sparse and mediocre writing. There’s no real ‘message’ in Dunkirk. Also, the film has a sub-plot line about a man’s son, whose friend is injured on a rescue boat, and while adding nothing to the story, it provides a superficial layer of emotion.

Now with all that set aside, ‘Dunkirk’ is a beautiful film. The score, sound effects, and cinematography are fantastic, and it’s great in 70mm film IMAX. But with its greatness comes many, many flaws – and it doesn’t really compare to some of the other great WW2 films in past decades.