Heather N King Exclusive For Mac
Recent: Jewish self-loathing: Rand repents?: OMG: Is profanity losing its punch?: Daydreaming may be the next childhood psychiatric target: Investors, Are You Ready for the Next Global Crisis? Mutual Fund Rankings, 2014: Pitching In When Caregivers Need Help: How to prevent a second (and first) heart attack thru diet: Caprese is a light, fresh salad; the perfect quick and easy accompaniment to any summer meal: You Want Nazis?: War Crimes in Gaza?: Care about the Jewish state's future? Anti-police activists and the mainstream media are incensed at the suggestion that the Black Lives Matter movement could have influenced the behavior of the four individuals in Chicago who tortured a disabled white man for hours last week while yelling 'Fuck white people' and 'Fuck Donald Trump.' In one sense, the activists and media are right: The influences were broader than that. They include the reign of racial victimology, inner-city gang culture, and black anti-white animus. We live in Ta-Nehesi Coates's America, characterized by the assumption that blacks are the eternal targets of lethal white oppression. Coates's central thesis in Between the World and Me, his acclaimed phantasmagoria of racial victimology, is that America continuously aspires to the 'shackling' and 'destruction' of 'black bodies.'
Chicago's four torturers certainly have not read Between the World and Me. But the book's worldview echoes throughout our society, including in the inner city. Michelle Alexander's equally publicized book, The New Jim Crow, argues that the U.S. Seeks to reimpose de facto segregation on blacks via the criminal justice system. Alexander has been a staple on black media, among many other outlets. President Obama, even up to his last days in office, that blacks are the victims of a racist criminal-justice system.
The press routinely disseminates phony statistics that purport to demonstrate a police war on blacks. These ideas matter. Black Lives Matter ideology is just a more in-your-face manifestation of the Coatesian conceit that blacks are living in a system determined to destroy them.
The Chicago Black Lives Matter chapter embraces the motto 'Stop killing us,' aimed at the Chicago Police Department. It chants: 'CPD, KKK: How many children did you kill today?' (The answer is: Virtually none. Last year, over 3,400 people in Chicago were shot, overwhelmingly black. Victims included 24 children 12 years of age or younger. The Chicago cops shot 25 people, virtually all armed and dangerous, or.6 percent of the total.) The Chicago Black Lives Matter chapter disseminates inflammatory lies about the Chicago police, such as that BLM activist Ja'Mal Green was beaten for 30 hours following an arrest for battery against an officer and trying to disarm an officer.
Increasing the size of the Chicago Police department, per the Chicago BLM, will simply result in 'more killings by police, more police torture and violence.' These anti-law enforcement claims reinforce existing anti-white animus in the inner city. The notion that the dominant or exclusive racism in America today is white anti-black racism is absurd.
Though many urban residents harbor no racial animosity, the recurrent 'Fuck Whitey' and 'Kill the cops' themes in rap music are not accidental. (Sample: 'Kill the White people; we gonna make them hurt; kill the White people; but buy my record first,' by Apache; 'The White man is the devil. Drive-by shooting on this White genetic mutant,' by Menace Clan.) I have been warned by residents of one East Harlem housing project not to go to a neighboring project because 'they really hate whites there.' Even if there weren't already a strain of racial hostility in inner-city culture, the constant establishment refrain that whites oppress blacks at every opportunity would create it.
Every highly publicized cop assassination in the last two years has triggered gloating on social media. Ja'Mal Green told the New York Times that the was 'not a setback at all' for Black Lives Matter. The Dallas gunman had said he wanted to kill white people and white cops. Though Green insisted that he was not encouraging violence, he said that the assassination showed 'the people of this country that black people are getting to a boiling point.
We are tired of watching police kill our brothers and sisters. We are tired of being tired.' At some point, there 'comes a time when black people will snap,' he said. While one is grateful for Green's avowal not to be encouraging violence, such sentiments come close to rationalizing it. The establishment typically looks the other way at manifestations of black anti-white animus. Racism in rap music is usually ignored.
The Associated Press excluded any reference to the race of the victim and assailants in its initial report on the Chicago torture episode, as, and merely noted that police were investigating a 'beating' captured on social media. The AP's follow-up report acknowledged that someone in the video appeared to use profanities about 'white people' and that the victim 'appeared to be white,' while 'others shown in the video appeared to be black.'
Radley Balko rushed to tweet out that the Chicago kidnapping is not a trend because since 2001, 80-85 percent of white murder victims were killed by whites. True, but the percentage of blacks killed by blacks is higher. From 1980 to 2008, were killed by blacks. White-on-black homicides are much rarer than black-on-white homicides. The vast bulk of interracial violence is committed by blacks. In 2012, blacks committed 560,600 acts of violence against whites, and whites committed 99,403 acts of violence against blacks, according to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey provided to the author: Distribution of violent victimizations, by race/Hispanic origin of victim and perceived race/Hispanic origin of offender, 2012-2013 Blacks, in other words, committed 85% of the interracial crimes between blacks and whites, even though they are 13 percent of the population. This data accords with the on interracial crime from the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the Bureau stopped publishing its table on interracial crime after 2008, the first year of the Obama presidency.
Some portion of those black-on-white crimes may be driven by the same racial hostility that gives rise to urban flash mobs and the knockout game. As Dead Prez rapped: 'We gonna order take out and when we see the driver/We gonna stick the 25 up in his face.
White boy in the wrong place at the right time.' Even if the higher rate of black-on-white violence is simply a product of blacks' higher rate of violence generally, that violent crime rate is another fact suppressed by the mainstream media whenever possible. In response to the Chicago torture video, Callum Borchers of the Washington Post at conservatives' supposed delusions, such as that 'Chicago is a war zone.'
This idea struck Borchers as so preposterous that he repeated it later in his column: 'Oh, and by the way, Chicago (the part inhabited mostly by black people, anyway) is a super-dangerous place,.' One wonders how quickly Collum would move his family out of the allegedly pacific South and West Sides of Chicago if he actually had to live there. The victims of a November 2016 robbery spree in Chicago may also disagree with King that the criminal-justice system is vindictive against black criminals. Isaiah Scaife had already been convicted of theft, attempted theft, criminal trespass, and possession of a stolen motor vehicle before he turned 18, according to DNAInfo.
He continued to commit gun crimes as a young adult. At age 19, after a conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, Scaife was already out on parole. That's when he began his five-day crime spree on November 18, robbing a Subway store's customers after sticking his gun in a baby's face and trying to manhandle his way behind the restaurant's counter. A few minutes later, he robbed a man leaving a Citgo gas station, beating the victim unconscious with his gun before shooting him in the face. The next day, Scaife returned to the same Subway, where he robbed and choked a man while a juvenile accomplice pointed a gun at the victim.
A few days later, Scaife pulled a gun on a man at another gas station and stole his possessions and car. At his arraignment, he yelled at the court deputies: 'I'm going to spit on your ass.' Scaife is hardly unique.
A huge percentage of violent crime is committed by people with serious criminal histories who are free to continue terrorizing the innocent. And, pace King, if you commit a drug crime, you'll get more leniency in a large urban jurisdiction than in a rural county, where sentences for white drug dealers dwarf those of inner-city traffickers,. At least one of the Facebook torture assailants belonged to the gang culture that produces Chicago's violent crime. Tesfaye Cooper posted a video on his YouTube channel in October in which he points a rifle at the camera and says: 'I'll put a bullet in your ass,' reports DNAInfo Chicago.
Cooper's Facebook page glorifies him posing with guns and paying homage to local murderers. His raps threaten to kill people who disrespect him and his crew. The violence in the Chicago torture video does not arise in a vacuum. Most residents of inner-city areas are hardworking bourgeois citizens longing to live in safety and in racial harmony. But the video opens a window into a culture that America would prefer to turn its eyes away from-and which it has helped create.
Previously:. The holiday hooliganism traces back to the Obama administration's destructive efforts to undermine school discipline. The Left condemns the GOP candidate even as it celebrates crudity and sexual exhibitionism throughout the culture. Hillary's Debate Lies. The price of a black life: Give Trump his due. The Fire Spreads: Three cops dead in Baton Rouge, and the analogies to the 1960s deepen.
We, the audience, continue to have cinematic tastes that remain ever-changing and even more so critical in regards to whom we select as our icons throughout history. I always find it intriguing when an actress manages to have a lengthy film career in Hollywood. Such is the case with Katherine Hepburn. This silver screen icon has a theater and film career that spans 66 years! A woman whose roots started in theater in the late 20s, and who started acting in movies in the 30s must have something special to be remembered after such a long time when many of her peers have long since been forgotten.
Intrigued by this prospect, I selected three films so that I may analyze and make observations about her acting style. The three films that I have selected are: Adam’s Rib (1949), Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967), and, On Golden Pond (1981).
Each of Hepburn’s performances in my last two film selections garnered her Oscar wins. Adam’s Rib (1949) was the first film starring Katherine Hepburn that I had ever watched.
I honestly didn’t recognize her right away, because I didn’t know what she looked liked. Five minutes into the movie I hit the pause button and looked for pictures of her online.
Once I was able to identify her in the film, she immediately struck me as having a stern, reserved, dominant, yet somehow very approachable air about her. It was the type of self-confidence that sometimes other people can often mistake for arrogance. To hear her speak is my absolute favorite characteristic of her acting style. Her pronunciation is always very clean and clear adding to her distinction as an actress. Such a style of speech is a dying - if not already dead – art form when compared to today’s mumbling of common vernacular. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with me. “Hepburn's upper-class Connecticut accent, polished at Bryn Mawr, seemed to have rubbed a good percentage of the public the wrong way.
To them she seemed snooty and pretentious - a classic case of confusing the performer with her character” (Cinescene.com). In Adam’s Rib Hepburn portrays a strong, dominant, intelligent lawyer named Amanda – not your typical sexy bombshell, damsel in distress or submissive house wife that was common in films of 1949. This signified to me that she was interested in roles that challenged the status quo.
As the film went on, I found her smile during many scenes to be somehow awkward and stiff. At first I thought she was preoccupied with her performance leading to her being unaware of her facial expressions and body language. Then I realized, as a lawyer (her character in this film) she would be preoccupied since she was acting as a defending lawyer opposite her lawyer husband on the same court case. What an amazing attention to detail and a real connection with the inner workings of her fictional character! I noticed interesting parallels between Hepburn and the role of Amanda. Amanda is confident, rejects mainstream norms of femininity and conformity by wearing pants in her free time, having a college education, working in a male-dominated career and not having children - just like Hepburn in real life. I find myself in agreement with Emanuel Levy, “In Adam's Rib, Hepburn identified with her character, which reflected the way she felt about sexism.
Ambitious and intelligent, Amanda scrapes the nerves of male authority and challenges male supremacy.” Although extremely poised and refined, Hepburn’s comic timing was sublime – beyond subtle! She was able to solicit laughter without asking for it in an obvious manner. Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? (1967) was the second movie on my list of films featuring Katherine Hepburn. Within the first two minutes of her screen time, I was already laughing. Just as in Adam’s Rib, her comic timing was flawless. When her Caucasian daughter in the film first reveals that she is going to marry an African American man, Hepburn looks like she’s about to explode with anger, yet she remains restrained and postured as always.
The subtle nuances of emotion that cascade over her visage and almost simultaneously disappear are easy to miss if you blink, yet add so much to this performance. In Dinner her smile comes off as natural. At one point Hepburn is able to summon up an appropriate amount of tears allowing them to well up in her eyes as she delivers a poignant speech.
Crying while delivering a message can sometimes backfire for an actress causing her to look as if she is overacting or going for a comedic effect. However, by choosing to allow the viewer to see just the beginning of tears in her eyes, she was able her to enhance her performance. “Until the landmark 1967 civil-rights case Loving vs. Virginia, which was decided just five months before Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner was released, marriage between blacks and whites was still illegal in parts of America, and Kramer’s (the director) film was notable for its willingness to tackle this taboo topic (History.com).” Again by addressing the theme of interracial marriage, Hepburn chose a role that challenged old beliefs and fading social standards; and I once again saw that she was a forward-thinking actress. Art imitates life – again!
So far her monologues in both films have always commanded my attention. I never found my mind drifting. Each time Hepburn incorporated naturally occurring pauses during such speeches that made me anticipate the next word.
Towards the end of the film she even managed to cry on cue again; and just as before it was natural and never forced. In my final film selection, On Golden Pond (1981) Hepburn received top billing. I find that truly amazing that after 49 years of acting in films she could still receive top billing at age 74! So many actresses due to the standards set by today’s star-making machine, go from receiving awards and top billing status to supporting parts and parts as comedy relief (i.e. Charlize Theron in Hancock (2008) and Susan Sarandon in The Lovely Bones (2009)) once their ages pass the mid 30s mark.
Hepburn’s body language in opening of the film exhibits a subtle consistent shake. This made me wonder if she was suffering from Parkinson’s disease at that time. Upon further investigation, I found out that she “did not suffer from Parkinson's disease. She set the record straight in the 1993 TV documentary Katharine Hepburn: All About Me (1993) (TV), which she narrated herself. Quote: 'Now to squash a rumor. No, I don't have Parkinson's. I inherited my shaking head from my grandfather Hepburn.
I discovered that whiskey helps stop the shaking. Problem is, if you're not careful, it stops the rest of you too. My head just shakes, but I promise you, it ain't gonna fall off (IMDB.com)!” This talented actress was even able to incorporate her idiosyncratic headshake into the character of this film to the point that I wondered if she was acting or truly had a sickness. At the ripe old age of 74 she exhibited a feisty personality and simply radiated happiness. She honestly seemed to be content with being a woman in her 70s. In Pond her character’s name is Ethel. That Bryn Mawr style of speaking that is proprietary to Hepburn fits the character perfectly.
Again her performance is emotive yet simultaneously restrained; and her speaking style although extremely refined and sophisticated never comes across as artificial or forced. It is simply natural. Even with her refined tone of speech, she delivered messages throughout the film without ever offering a hint of condescension. Take for example, when Ethel explains to Billy that her husband only wants to prove that he is still in control of his life and not succumbing to old age: “It means he’s like an old lion. He has to remind himself that he can still roar” (On Golden Pond (1981)).
It’s difficult to remember that she is actually acting in this movie. It was really like watching a moment in an elderly woman’s life. Her performance is effortless and completely believable. It truly is no wonder that she won an Oscar for this performance. All in all I have enjoyed learning about this iconic actress.
Of the three films that I have viewed, I have no criticism of her performances. However, some film critics have argued that her performances lacked range since she usually portrayed strong female characters that challenged the status quo. Again, this is in my opinion is hardly a criticism of her actual ability to act.
I find it notable that Hepburn was able to portray strong protagonists again and again without alienating the audience. “Film critic Molly Haskell has commented on the importance of this to Hepburn's career: with an intimidating presence, it was necessary that her characters 'do some kind of self-abasement, to stay on the good side of the audience' (Wikipedia.org). She did just this in Adam’s Rib in moments where her character, Amanda, showed her emotional vulnerability to her husband outside of the courtroom. She chose to portray strong female protagonists in roles that challenged society’s set standards. By doing so she not only offered viewers entertainment, rather delivered messages. She forced the audience to contemplate things from a different perspective that they had possibly never attempted to consider since they had no previous exposure to such opposing views.
Katherine Hepburn was not only an actress but a messenger of social change Works Cited Dashiell, Chris. 'Katharine Hepburn.' Cinescene.com - Katharine Hepburn. Cinescene.com, 2003. 13 May 2012. 'Hepburn, Tracy and Poitier Star in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.'
Heather N King Exclusive For Mac Free
A&E Television Networks. 13 May 2012.
'Katharine Hepburn.' Wikimedia Foundation, 13 May 2012. 13 May 2012. Levy, Emanuel.
'FILM REVIEWS.' Welcome to Emanuel Levy. Emanuel Levy. 13 May 2012. On Golden Pond. Katherine Hepburn, Henry Fonda. Universal Pictures, 1981.
13 May 2012.