157 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/01/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Sandra Fluke, a noted reproductive rights activist, attorney and all-around BAMF, spoke at IU last week on the topic of reproductive rights and the outdated language we use in everyday conversation when discussing it. Pro-life? Pro-choice? Why do these labels seem to ostensibly steer discussions on reproductive and sexual health when abortion is hardly the sole issue being debated anymore? When did we choose to let abortion act as the flagship for an overall more significant platform?“We’re not going to just stop saying pro-choice and start saying reproductive justice. We have to have a broader agenda than just abortion access,” Fluke said. And she’s right. We’re talking access to contraception, cancer screenings and sexual education, among other things.While Fluke calls out “pro-life” and “pro-choice” for too broadly covering the wide spectrum of reproductive health, I find the stupidity of the phrase “pro-life” goes beyond its inability to encompass all sexual health platforms. A person carrying the designation of being “pro-life,” of course, means they are against abortion. The inevitable reciprocal of the “pro-life” designation would seemingly be “pro-abortion.” Lucky for us, someone cooked up “pro-choice”, which has a much more pleasant — and accurate — ring to it. But that in and of itself is the reason “pro-life” is such an absurd and alarmist phrase. It isn’t as if people who believe women have the right to make decisions regarding their own bodies are enthusiastically for the abortion of fetuses. No one champions the physical act of abortion. No one is passionate about making sure abortions happen. Pro-choice believers don’t gather in some back-alley, Oprah-esque meeting where someone wildly screams, “You get an abortion! And you get an abortion!” What people believe in is the woman’s right to make her own reproductive health decisions. People believe in making sure women have feasible access to an abortion if that is the conclusion she comes to for herself — hence the more appropriate phrase “pro-choice,” and not “pro-abortion.”But Fluke has a point. “Pro-choice” isn’t a golden phrase, either. Its focus is much too limited in the grand scheme of the political venue. While it’s a wonder to me that anyone has the audacity to politicize issues of such a personal matter, apparently it’s up to a bunch of congressional white men in Washington, D.C., to decide in what manner a woman is supposed to make what should be private decisions. While abortion and contraception carry the weight of exceedingly contentious issues with religious, personal and political significance, the issues of cancer screenings and sexual education have the potential to affect everyone, regardless of gender or religious affiliation. We cannot let our self-induced labels of “pro-life” or “pro-choice” come into play when considering them. We cannot afford to paint with the broad brush and see someone who considers themself “pro-life” to be against all the issues that enter the blanket platform of “pro-choice,” or vice versa. It’s time to look above and beyond abortion to see the complete picture, which is available, viable and affordable reproductive health care for everyone. — wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(03/28/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The best movies are always expertly walking that fine line between art and escapism.Films inherently need an emotional heft but must retain enough style to remind us that it is, after all, still just a movie. We want to relate, but we also want to be wowed. This month saw the release of Harmony Korine’s “Spring Breakers,” where stars like Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens party it up with James Franco as a slimy Floridian gangster, steal money, do drugs and cause all-out havoc. It doesn’t exactly sound like typical indie film fare, especially in comparison to the rest of Korine’s artsy directorial work. But who can resist watching young, attractive Disney Queens do despicable things? When it opened in three theaters nationwide March 15, “Spring Breakers” grossed an outstanding $263,002. That’s $87,667 per theater. Now this may sound like pure escapism. I don’t know about everyone else, but my spring breaks don’t typically involve robbery and compulsive drug use. Relatable isn’t perhaps what Korine is aiming for. But he understands an audience’s carnal desire to watch gorgeous people break the law and do terrible things. It’s a niche that’s been tried and true. Who didn’t take pleasure in watching Ryan Phillippe, Reese Witherspoon and Sarah Michelle Gellar backstab and betray each other in “Cruel Intentions”?The same goes for Sofia Coppola’s upcoming film “The Bling Ring,” which is based on a true story where Hollywood teenagers broke into multiple stars’ homes and burgled clothes, jewels and other valuables. It has the same good girls gone bad appeal of “Spring Breakers,” except in “The Bling Ring” we get to watch Emma Watson and her crew of cohorts behave badly while looking glamorous in the process. When filmmakers with pedigrees like Korine and Coppola want to tell these stories, there must be more than parties, drugs and stars. These are tales of indulgence, extravagance and the danger that comes with them. How far are people willing to go to have it all? Pretty far, if we’re to judge from these movies. But the question is, why do we enjoy this behavior? Are we condoning bad deeds in buying tickets to these movies? It might be too picturesque to imagine we want to see disgraceful people receive their just rewards and face punishment for their immoral actions. But what if that’s looking too far into things? What if we just simply want to watch hot people do bad things? Is that really so wrong? I’ll raise my voice and own up to the fact that I enjoy it. I can’t wait to see “Spring Breakers” and “The Bling Ring.” I practically salivate every time I replay their trailers online over and over again. Or maybe it’s because we adore watching nice girls like Gomez and Watson scrub off those clean, pristine good-girl images and run amok on screen. Nothing says not wanting to get typecasted as the angel next door like stripping your clothes and taking bong hits on film. I believe we ultimately love to see these movies because it’s a world we don’t, and probably never will, live in. And even if that were your life, it wouldn’t be nearly as alluring as it looks on the big screen. We see them because after we leave the theater, we get to return to our normal, mundane lives where fame and opulence are just a dizzy daydream.
(03/28/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Veronica Mars was never a heroine. She was a hero.Her passionate television fandom recently won a serious victory. Last week, a Kickstarter campaign launched to fund a feature film continuation of the acclaimed crime noir television show “Veronica Mars” by series creator Rob Thomas. Less than 12 hours after opening, the project had achieved its goal of $2 million. A week later, the film is now backed by more than 55,000 people pledging more than $3.5 million. Not only does this display the intense enthusiasm held by legions of “Veronica Mars” fans, but this hints at an innovative future for both filmmaking and film funding. The series “Veronica Mars” premiered on the now-defunct network UPN in September 2004. While the show never broke ratings records, it garnered critical acclaim for its clever writing and for lead actress Kristen Bell’s performance as the titular teen sleuth. Veronica followed in the footsteps of Buffy Summers as a mold-shattering female protagonist. During three seasons, two on UPN and one on The CW, Veronica solved crimes alongside her sheriff turned PI father and a loyal circle of friends in sun-drenched Neptune, California. Unfortunately, The CW cancelled the series in 2007 when it didn’t attract the viewers network executives sought. Fans, myself among them, were crushed. In a sea of gossip girls and damsels in distress, Veronica was the female character television needed. And now she was gone with a swift flip of an executive’s fiscal conscience. But six years later, fans have continually spoken and they’ve finally been heard. Thomas and Bell, who have both campaigned for a “Veronica Mars” film since the series went off the air, reached a deal with Warner Bros. that concluded that if $2 million could be raised for the production, the studio would distribute the film in early 2014. Worry about raising the $2 million was needless. The project now has its goal budget, and that number can continue to grow until the pledging window closes April 12th. Countless questions may now be asked. Could this be the future of film? Funding from the public to the projects they want to see made? Are people willing to fund a film on top of paying to see it once it’s released? The “Veronica Mars” team seems to have that snag figured out. With a certain dollar amount donation, a digital copy and/or DVD will be sent to the funder. A pledge is essentially paying what you would have paid to see the movie anyway. While it’s tremendous to know fans will finally have the closure the abrupt series finale failed to give, the future of the film industry has come to a remarkable intersect with the greenlighting of the “Veronica Mars” movie. This is a film that is being made because of its fandom. Without six years of relentless grumbling and howling, the “Veronica Mars” movie would not be heading into production this summer. This is truly a passion project equally attributed to the cast, crew and fan base. Some naysayers are grumbling that the “Veronica Mars” fans are paying the tab while Warner Bros. will see the profits. This may be true, but this film would not be getting made any other way. The fans were given an opportunity, and they took it without hesitation. So today, let us celebrate the victory of a devoted fandom and leave the cynicism and negativity to the penny pinchers and pessimists.
(03/25/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ve never considered myself to be a political person. Elections come and go, and sure, they’re exciting for a hot minute, but then the fuss dies down and nothing really changes. Maybe I have a hard time, because I don’t understand anything about the economy. I mostly just rely on Anderson Cooper to let me know when it’s up and when it’s down. Then I get to shake my fist at Congress when things are bad and applaud President Obama when they’re good.So when it comes to voting, I really have to do my research. This entails glancing at a candidate’s website for five minutes, but that probably yields a more informed decision than most of the voting populace. But even after mulling over the platforms and all the political jargon, there’s something I value above all other extraneous details.Who is the person or party I’m voting for? Who are they as people? Are they self-righteous jerks with an unfeasible agenda and a power complex, or are they relatable, intelligent, trustworthy folks? This, of course, is all about image, which I realize is a media-ready brand concocted by people to appear likeable. Regardless, I still want a politician’s image to be something I can relate to. So in the upcoming IU Student Association elections, the tickets can spout all the rhetoric they want at me. At the end of the day, I’m still going to vote for who I think has my best interests at heart — the dependable people who don’t seem like cold, distant politicians. I want to vote for students to lead a student government. Student government is not a business, and I don’t want a bunch of suits acting as a voice on my behalf. I’m not a suit. I’m a student. I don’t need to be versed in politics to understand that. That being said, platforms still matter. As a student at this University and a voter, you need to be as informed as possible. Do your research. Ask questions. Get to know the tickets. Find out what they stand for, what they want this University to be and who they are as people.Chances are, somebody reading this column won’t vote in the IUSA elections. I don’t blame you. There was a time when I wouldn’t have voted either. Because I was what everyone assumes I am, which is an apathetic college student with little to no regard for public leadership. But I’m growing up, and I’ve come to realize I have a duty to contribute to the public sphere. Politics is never going to be my passion, and it doesn’t have to be. What I do have to be is informed. Your voice is not going to be heard by the powers that be unless you vote for the people that best represent you. So demand excellence and responsibility from your leaders. Unless you personally plan on running for student office, they’re your only hope. — wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(03/18/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“Girls,” HBO’s comedy series that just aired its second season finale, has never shied away from controversy. Series creator Lena Dunham has come under fire for many aspects of the show, from its almost entirely white cast to the plots, which are generally #firstworldproblems. But last week’s episode, “On All Fours,” has viewers divided on an even more contentious question. The episode asks the audience to decide the nature of a sexual encounter between one of the main characters, Adam, and his new girlfriend Natalia.In the opening scene of the episode, Adam and Natalia have their first sexual experience after Natalia decides she’s “ready to have sex now.” Adam hesitates, only wanting to do it if she’s ready. She consents. Natalia also lists her sexual expectations. Adam is willing to adhere to these demands, going as far to say, “I like how clear you are with me.” By the episode’s end, things between Adam and Natalia are rather ambiguous. Adam, an alcoholic who has been sober for years, awkwardly runs into his ex-girlfriend, Hannah, and decides to order a drink. After a night of continued drinking with Natalia, they go back to his apartment and he demands she crawl on all fours to his bed. She hesitantly consents. He proceeds to throw her on the bed and have sex with her from behind. She hesitates and says she hasn’t showered. Adam tells her to just relax. He begins to masturbate and she hurriedly pulls her dress down so he doesn’t ejaculate on it. Natalia tells Adam, “I don’t think I liked that.” Just as when sexual assault happens in reality, things between the fictional characters of Adam and Natalia might seem intangibly vague depending on who you ask. Some might say Adam raped Natalia, plain and simple. She was uncomfortable with what happened and he should have stopped. Others would argue that she never specifically said “no” to Adam and it can’t be categorized as rape. For my two cents, I don’t think this is the question we should be asking.I think what we should be asking is how and why the character of Adam came to believe it was OK to treat a sexual partner in such a demeaning manner. Whether you want to categorize it as rape or not, it was still wrong. It doesn’t make a difference if the word “no” is used or not. A person should be conscious enough with their partner to know if he or she is uncomfortable and if a line may have been crossed. An open channel of communication needs to exist. Of course, what we are observing here is Adam’s creative journey as a character. He is a flawed human being who doesn’t always do the right thing, just like all of us. That is what draws an audience to him. He isn’t showing up on girl’s doorsteps with flowers and a copy of “The Vow.” I wouldn’t want to watch that show. I want to watch the show with an emotionally stunted young man still learning the difference between right and wrong. So ultimately, I applaud Dunham for writing this scene, because it quietly establishes two things. One, a mental block to your sexual partner’s attitude is something that must not exist. Two, just because you do a bad thing does not make you a bad person. Once Adam is done having sex with Natalia, a look of horror washes over him. He knows exactly what he’s done and he regrets it. Dunham leaves it up for you to decide if Adam sexually assaulted Natalia or not, just as it’s left up to you to determine your own personal boundaries and be able to assert them under difficult circumstances.— wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(03/07/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>We all may be suffering from a little bit of Anne Hathaway-related fatigue. The newly minted Academy Award winner for “Les Misérables” has been a hot commodity this awards season, racking up dozens upon dozens of trophies for her stunning turn as Fantine in the bold, if overdone, musical. In less delicate terms, we’ve had to watch Hathaway feign surprise every time she won an award in the last few months. But she couldn’t act like she knew she was going to win, lest the Academy and America turn their backs on the young actress. The Academy stood strong, but it seems like the jury may be out on America’s opinion.What came as a surprise was the formidable backlash that has surfaced in light of Hathaway’s victory. Many people feel as if she is faking modesty and she’s known since day one she would be winning awards for her role. To be fair, we all probably seem like we’re faking modesty in comparison to Best Actress winner Jennifer Lawrence, a girl so genuine we probably would have been more surprised if she had not fallen on her way to the stage. But comparisons aside, people just believe Hathaway is constantly playing the delicate ingénue. Whispering to her Oscar before she began her speech, “It came true...” Hathaway does appear to evoke the dramatic regality and poise of classic Hollywood leading ladies. But are we really so jaded a society we have to believe the worst of Hathaway? Just because she memorized her acceptance speech and wrapped it up with a plea to end poverty, she’s being fake? If so, you better also hate the majority of people who attended that Oscars. You know, a big room full of actors and their not-so-miniature egos. And let me tell you, Daniel Day-Lewis knew he was winning and had his speech memorized before “Lincoln” was even shot. You don’t hear nameless Internet trolls debasing him. It’s also a cheap and easy jab to claim Hathaway is devoid of talent. If you think that, you have not seen “Les Misérables.” Hathaway was nominated for Best Actress back in 2009 for her raw turn as a recovering drug addict in the criminally under-viewed “Rachel Getting Married.” This isn’t a girl who rolled into Hollywood last week and scored a role on a whim. Hathaway is a woman who has turned in charming performance after charming performance for over a decade. From “The Princess Diaries” to “The Dark Knight Rises,” Hathaway has rarely missed a beat.In addition to being a talented actress, Hathaway is also heavily involved in philanthropy and charity. In 2007, she gave a speech at a gala for the Human Rights Campaign in support of her brother. In 2012, she sold her wedding photographs and donated the proceeds to the American Cancer Society, Freedom to Marry and St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, among others. Now, I realize everyone can’t agree on which actress or actor we should all like. People will hate who they hate and have not the faintest reason or rhyme to back it up. Really, I’m being a complete hypocrite seeing as I attend the Church of Loathing Kirsten Stewart. But, last I checked, Anne Hathaway has flawless teeth, a heart of gold and an Oscar, and I’m pretty sure no one reading this has all three of those. So maybe the haters should all project their insecurities on a more deserving target.
(03/07/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Sadly, you’re not jetting off to the beach, but you wouldn’t be caught dead hanging around the ghost town Bloomington will become. Instead, for spring break you’re headed home, to a familiar land where fridges are fully stocked and the floors don’t reek of stale beer and day-old Pizza X. Sure, being home isn’t always easy. Parents feel like they still need to monitor your every move, and the confines of your bedroom will slowly but surely begin to close in. But it isn’t all that bad. Here’s a list of things you may want to consider doing while you’re home over break, lest you get suckered into watching hours upon hours of Lifetime movies with your mom — unless that’s your thing. Visit your old high school, middle school or elementary schoolYes, it’s as lame as it sounds. But there must be some good reason you haven’t considered. Maybe you have a sibling and you could take them lunch. Nothing could be cooler to them than their college-aged big brother or sister bringing them some swanky meal, like sushi or Chipotle. Or perhaps you haven’t seen that one teacher who you really connected with in a while. Dropping in would be a nice reminder of how much you’ve progressed since graduating and where you still plan to go. Seeing tiny playground equipment that used to look so huge is always a nice bit of nostalgia. And let’s be honest: being a suave college kid around scads of pimply teenagers does make you feel pretty good about yourself. Find a show you’ve never seen on Netflix and watch the whole seriesSurely there’s that one TV show you’ve never watched that everyone has always told you need to check out. Or maybe you’re like me and you pretend you’ve seen “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” so people won’t judge you. Either way, see what Netflix recommends for you and knock out season after season to avoid doing anything productive. Work on the spring break beach body you don’t needSure, you won’t be hitting the sand and showing off your flat, oily stomach, but that’s no reason not to hit the gym or go for a run. Take the time away from classes and boozing to cleanse your system and start spring off on the right foot. Running around your neighborhood is a lot less intimidating than trying to keep up with all the inhumanly attractive, eternally energetic marathoners casually running around campus. Actually read a book for pleasureWith all the reading we have to complete for classes, students rarely have time to read for fun. Spring break is the perfect time to lock yourself in your room and read that novel that’s been gathering dust on your desk for months. If nothing else, read “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” for the ninth time. Plan a day visit to a big cityAssuming you’re cooped up in the suburbs, get together with your friends and road trip to the closest major city. Shop, see a show, explore a museum or find a hole-in-the-wall dive with great food. Pretend you’re a cool city slicker/actual adult.Reorganize your bedroom and closetNothing says spring cleaning like taking the time to change it up in your bedroom at home. Seeing as you’ll spend plenty of time in there avoiding your family, you may as well take that Fall Out Boy poster off the wall and find a new corner for your bed. Also, donate anything to Goodwill with Hollister or Aeropostale across the chest. You’ll thank me later. Find your center Now is the perfect time to spend copious amounts of money on yoga sessions at your nearest studio. While approximately $15 per single session normally may seem high, just think of all the money you’re saving by not buying souvenirs and plane tickets. Yoga is a great way to increase flexibility, relax and feel at peace. Afraid you won’t be able to keep up? Just stay in child’s pose the entire time – yes, this is acceptable – and take some time to clear your mind. Just try not to fall asleep. Plus, at the end of most sessions, most yoga studios rub your neck with lavender oil and offer free tea, so your $15 is totally worth it.
(03/04/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>When writers publish their work, there’s nothing more disheartening than having people misinterpret what you’re trying to say and turn it into something it was not intended to be. That is the beauty and danger of the written word. Because everyone can take something different from a piece, the author’s desired message may be lost.What I meant to do in my Jan. 24 column, “Bisexual bias,” was voice that I am a product of an unjust society in which bisexuality is viewed with hostile suspicion. I have trouble grasping the existence of bisexuality because I have grown up influenced by ignorant foundations of thought. In hindsight, I played up the declaration that bisexuals don’t exist too aggressively in the column. I employed the controversial punch and neglected to be the articulate writer I can be. Unfortunately, this joke defined my column and steered away from the real point I was trying to make, which was our culture isn’t accepting of bisexual men. When I wrote the column it was never my intention to insult or hurt anyone, and I apologize if anyone took my piece offensively. Since then, I’ve been labeled a homophobic and misogynist bigot. With taking this job, I never thought everyone would agree with me 100 percent of time, but being called these things has been upsetting. While I am not perfect, I am in no way, shape or form homophobic or misogynistic. I realize I cannot explicitly prove these things in the limited space I have for this column. But in my daily life, I have nothing but the highest level of respect for both the gay community and women. What I am, however, is a college student and aspiring writer who is continuously learning and growing. By writing my columns, I’m exploring myself in addition to looking at issues and events from an analytical viewpoint. I’m not a perfect writer or person, but I’m attending school and writing newspaper columns in order to better both myself and my writing. In the aftermath of my column’s publication, I had the good fortune to participate in a panel discussion regarding bisexuality with experts like Martin Weinberg from the Department of Sociology and Brian Dodge from the School of Public Health, who have both extensively researched the subject. The discussion, which can be listened to online, opened my eyes to a point of view and lifestyle I didn’t understand before. I was also lucky to have a fellow columnist write an eloquently written and informative rebuttal, especially for me. I’m happy to know even though my previous column was written from a place of ignorance, I can now grow towards understanding and acceptance, which would not have happened if I had not written “Bisexual bias.” At the end of the day, people are free to judge whether my opinions are right, wrong or somewhere in between, but they are still my own. I’ve been given a platform on which I can share those opinions, and it would be a dishonesty to censor myself just because some people may get offended. That being said, the reaction from my column has given me the chance to expand my horizons and revaluate what I believe. As a student, I’m constantly growing, constantly learning new things and constantly rediscovering who I am. That’s why we’re here at IU. Yes, we’re working towards degrees and, ideally, a career. But most importantly, we’re here to grow into the people we were meant to be. I’m always going to be a work in progress, but I’m figuring it out a bit more every day, one column at a time. — wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(02/25/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The state of Mississippi owes Steven Spielberg a colossal thank you. Because of the award-winning director, what any educated, sane person would have expected to have heard a century or more ago finally happened last month. A staggering 148 years after the United States of America formally abolished the uncivil practice of slavery, Mississippi has finally jumped on the bandwagon. Back in November, Ranjan Batra, an Indian-born professor at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, saw Spielberg’s film “Lincoln,” which depicts our 16th president’s final months in office. Abraham Lincoln sought to and ultimately succeeded in passing the abolishment of slavery in Congress. Batra decided to go online that night and see what happened when the states started to ratify the amendment. He quickly learned that many states — Kentucky, Delaware and New Jersey among them — didn’t ratify the amendment until the 20th century. Mississippi had voted to ratify in 1995, but due to an unknown clerical error, the ratification was never filed with the National Archives’ Office of the Federal Register. The appropriate people were notified and Mississippi became the 50th state to ratify the 13th Amendment on Feb. 7, 2013. For anyone like me who isn’t a Constitutional scholar, the 13th Amendment reads as such:“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” As far as Constitutional amendments go, it’s a rather light text. You get the gist of it quickly. You can’t own people and make them do things for you. Because, you know, that’s wrong. But it should come as no surprise that Mississippi is coming in solid last place in ratifying the 13th Amendment. They’re pulling up the tail end in plenty of other categories, too. Mississippi has the lowest per capita income in the United States, reaching barely over $30,000, which is $10,000 short of the national average. A mere 62 percent of adults have a high school degree, whereas the national percentage is around 80. Most mind boggling of all, nearly one-third of adults in the region score a “Level 1” on the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, meaning they have the reading skills and comprehension of an elementary school student. So, in Mississippi’s defense, considering the state’s current rate of illiteracy maybe they just couldn’t read the 13th Amendment. While it must be stated that the Mississippi congress did attempt to ratify the 13th Amendment in 1995, that’s still 128 years after slavery became illegal in the United States. Most people currently attending IU were born before 1995. We were alive when Mississippi still legally rejected the abolishment of slavery. It shouldn’t come as a shock to know racism is still alive in this country. But to know active racism was still lawfully supported as late as 2013? That’s a whole other story. It is a government’s position and duty to act as a role model for its citizens, be it the federal government or small-town local government. I know kind, compassionate people from Mississippi who don’t represent the ideals reflected in the state’s legislation, and it offends me to know these people will be forced to hang their heads in shame over a prejudiced government. I can only hope Mississippi’s government won’t continue to perpetuate these archaic morals. But, if they do, maybe we can look forward to same-sex marriage ratification by 2171.— wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(02/21/13 3:50am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>With the release of Netflix’s first major original series, political drama “House of Cards” starring Kevin Spacey, the company has revealed its plans to take the reigns of the ever-evolving television format.The days when people sat down to watch live television are gone. Now with the advent of the Internet, digital video recorders and Netflix, people have the leisure to watch shows on their time.But even if the gamut of television viewership is more widespread than ever, many pop culture pundits believe we’re living in a golden age of television programming, and they’re right. This is due to the years of creative freedom afforded to such networks as HBO, Showtime, AMC and FX, who aren’t shouldered with the same content restrictions as the networks known as the Big Four (ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC). And now Netflix is getting into the game with its instant streaming selections.“House of Cards,” whose 13 chapters were all released online Feb. 1, is unquestionably the flagship for Netflix’s innovative endeavor. With such big name talents as Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright in front of the camera and celebrated filmmaker David Fincher directing/producing, it’s hard to imagine the concept failing. “House of Cards” proved to be a modern Shakespearean political roller coaster, featuring the darkest and dankest back alleys of Washington political affairs. Netflix’s chief content officer Ted Sarandos said “House of Cards” is currently the most watched item on the website. Come May, we’ll see the launch of the anticipated return of the critically adored cult comedy “Arrested Development,” which should be another major draw for the website. But Netflix shouldn’t pop the champagne just yet. The other new shows sound promising, but they don’t come with the built-in safety net of big names or fan bases. “Weeds” creator Jenji Kohan will produce a new show centered on a women’s prison entitled “Orange is the New Black,” debuting in the late spring. The summer will bring “Derek” from comedian Ricky Gervais, which revolves around workers in a nursing home. Optimistically, these shows will see the same kind of success “House of Cards” is seeing. They may sound like risks, but as long as the creative content is nourishing, Netflix is looking like it may just be the next great television competitor. The system still does require some fine-tuning. While I was more than happy at the time to devour all 13 chapters of “House of Cards” in a week, it does feel unsatisfying to know I’ll most likely be waiting another year for a new season. In hindsight, I would have preferred Netflix to launch the episodes on a weekly basis to extend the ride. But then again, that’s what regular television does, and Netflix is looking to redefine the medium.The upcoming months will be crucial in seeing Netflix build and nurture its new configuration. Like all art forms, television is constantly being reenergized. I’d bank on Netflix leading the charge, fostering viewers further into this golden age of television.
(02/18/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>They say a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. While that’s true, I just can’t help but wonder if The Back Door, Bloomington’s new gay dance bar, would sit a little better with me if it didn’t have such a cheap and vulgar name. Please do not mistake my distaste for this particular gay bar’s name as disdain for gay bars in general. Gay bars are a significant component in the promotion of gay culture and a mecca for the rise of the gay rights movement. For more than a century, gay bars have been meeting places and private celebrations of a sexuality and culture not commonly accepted in society. As early as 1890, gay men met up in selective bars to seek prospective partners. In 1969, the now-legendary police raid at the Stonewall Inn ignited the contemporary gay rights faction. But we no longer live in a society where being gay is something that must be hidden away in a concealed club. While I personally don’t see the productivity in labeling bars as “gay” or not, I understand gay bars are a necessary cog in the machine of gay culture, and I think it’s great Bloomington now has a gay dance bar for those who will enjoy it. I can imagine that on numerous occasions, Bloomington’s LGBT residents have felt harassed and unsafe in bars such as Kilroy’s or Dunnkirk. It’s vital those people have a place where sexuality of all kinds is accepted and celebrated.But why on earth does it have to be called The Back Door? To be honest, when I first heard about this establishment being called such a tacky name, I thought people were joking. Once I was assured it was actually called The Back Door, I was just plain embarrassed. It reduces a bar that’s supposed to be an inclusive and convivial haven to a crude sex joke I would expect Dane Cook or Larry the Cable Guy to crack. It also isn’t helping that all the logos I’ve seen for The Back Door feature a unicorn superimposed over a flash of rainbows. Because the title alone wasn’t gay enough, a unicorn and rainbows were necessary to drive the concept home. My personal feelings aside, I’m worried naming a bar The Back Door would make it the butt of every joke. See what I did there? It isn’t hard when the name itself is a seemingly un-ironic self-parody. I would have the same issue if Kilroy’s suddenly decided to change its name to The Breast Bar or Missionary Position. It’s tasteless and shamelessly advertises the shock factor, not to mention its demeaning demeanor.Still, the name isn’t ruining what the bar’s message seems to be. Bloomington deserves a place where members of the LGBT community and beyond can openly drink, play and dance in a welcoming environment. But the next time someone is locally opening up a gay bar, I hope they take a hint from such establishments as The Abbey in Los Angeles or Heaven in London. Stick to simple and classy names, not ones that invoke lowbrow schoolyard jokes.— wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(02/15/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>We’ve all been sexually aroused in the wrong place at the wrong time. But have you ever thought we should take things a step further? Well no fear, because now there’s a dress that renders itself clear whenever the wearer is in the mood to get it on. Created by Dutch designer Daan Roosegaarde, the “Intimacy 2.0” uses an assortment of technology, including LEDs, electronics and smart fabrics to become translucent when stimulated by a hastening heartbeat. Though Roosegaarde claims his design is “a fashion project exploring the relation between intimacy and technology,” I can’t help but feel we’re losing an essential component of propriety in a society where privacy is an increasingly uncommon occurrence. Skirts and dresses are often times already short enough. Fabrics cling to the human form, leaving little to no room for imagination. Now Roosegaarde’s dress just feels like the next step in advancement toward endorsed public nudity. But hey, look on the bright side, no more stressing out about what to wear Saturday night. It’ll just end up disappearing anyway.This also trudges up the age-old debate about how much sexuality can coexist peacefully with art in the public frame. What is indecent? What is obscene? Is art allowed to be both?Fashion is certainly an essential medium of art. It’s an art we live our lives in. But in cases such as this, some people tend to be offended by the nudity, like on television or film. I’m certainly not offended by this dress, and I wouldn’t advocate for banning it. I just wonder if in this case, the garment comes off as tacky and being provocative for provocative’s sake. If art is supposed to have a message, I don’t see this dress as having one worthy of conveying. It appears simply to exist for the purpose of advertising one’s arousal. Perhaps I’m just being excessively prudish and putting too much thought into my days as a consciously horny Indiana youth. I don’t feel as if I’m alone in saying I’ve hid, mostly unsuccessfully, many an unwanted erection in my middle school and even high school days. Having pants that turned translucent would have done me no favors during puberty.I’m not shy about my sexuality or sexuality in general. Arousal is a perfectly human occurrence and sexual tendencies shouldn’t be avoided or restricted from discussion. But what is sexuality without an air of mystery? Half the fun lies in the chase and seduction, both of which would be obsolete if our clothes disappeared when our libidos perked up. At the end of the day, even if I’m on not completely on board with the vanishing dress, I still have to admit it’s pretty cool. As far as fashion goes, it is innovative and original. I only worry if this is just another blow to our already crumbling foundation of discretion. In an age of Tinder, relationship statuses and hook up culture, where do we cross the line? Still, fashion is personal expression. So it is up to people to decide whether they want their clothes evaporating whenever they’re ready to get it on. For my two cents, I’d rather my clothes stayed just the way they are every time I’m aroused.— wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(02/14/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It may have started out slow, but 2012 certainly picked up speed in the last inning to become an exceptional year for film. Filmmakers ranging from seasoned professionals to first-time directors delivered a year of film that was both enlightening and incomparable. With the Academy Awards fast approaching, here are my votes for the best films of 2012. Go see them, and if you missed the boat, snap them up when they hit Redbox or Netflix.1) “Beasts of the Southern Wild” — still in theaters First-time director Benh Zeitlin brings a haunting work of astounding poeticism and nerve set in a post-Katrina bayou. By taking us into a world seen by so few, it’s at once mysterious, dazzling and, eventually, heartbreaking. But the film’s true anchor is Quvenzhane Wallis, who was only 6 years old when the film was shot, embodying our young heroine Hushpuppy. Wallis, now 9, is currently the youngest person to ever be nominated for the Best Actress Academy Award. This film is southern gothic in a way we have never seen before and probably never will see again. 2) “Silver Linings Playbook” — still in theaters This film shouldn’t work. By God, it just should not work — it’s a romantic dramedy built on mental illness, gambling and ballroom dancing. But like crazy, mental, glorious life itself, the film does, and it’s nominated for multiple Oscars as a result. It’s at once frantic and smooth, riding a wave of steady direction and flooring performances by stars Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper and Robert De Niro. David Russell, who both adapted the screenplay from the original novel and directed the film, drew inspiration from his own son’s battles with mental illness, and it shows. It’s been years since a romantic comedy was this original and revitalized. 3) “Zero Dark Thirty” — still in theaters Both a drama and an action film, Oscar-nominated “Zero Dark Thirty” is an unspeakably brilliant endeavor that takes journalistic filmmaking to a completely new stratosphere. Kathryn Bigelow directs the story of one woman’s quest for Osama Bin Laden’s head with more substance than the majority of her colleagues working today, and lead actress Jessica Chastain is electric to watch.4) “Lincoln” — still in theaters Daniel Day-Lewis and Sally Field are at the top of their game in “Lincoln,” masterfully living their characters rather than just merely portraying them. But the film, which depicts the final months of Lincoln’s life and his efforts to get the 13th amendment abolishing slavery passed, flies even higher as an engulfing political commentary, showcasing what can happen when men do what’s right despite their personal doubts and demons.5) “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” — out on DVD and Blu-ray An exquisitely piercing adaptation of the cult classic young adult novel that breathes life into it through visceral dramatic performances, especially relatable leading man Logan Lerman.6) “Argo” — out on DVD and Blu-ray Feb. 19 A dramatization of the 1979 Iran hostage crisis and the crazy plot to extract six United States diplomats, the film is insanely tense and equally riveting. Ben Affleck proves again he’s an ace when it comes to his directional skills, nailing the moody late 70s/early 80s atmosphere with no schmaltz or trickery. 7) “Skyfall” — out on DVD and Blu-ray With winks to the past but an eye to the future, the James Bond franchise has never been so good at reminding us why we love seeing Bond onscreen. Forget the old adage that men want to be him and women want to sleep with him. We all want to sleep with him. 8) “Looper” — out on DVD and Blu-ray This futuristic mind-bending film, starring a stellar Joseph Gordon-Levitt, hits its stride balancing traditional action with subtle smarts and philosophical dilemmas. It’ll certainly throw you for a curve, but the talents of the main trio of actors will keep you enthralled.9) “Your Sister’s Sister” — out on DVD and Blu-ray Although this romantic dramedy technically came out in 2011, this film starring Emily Blunt is expertly engaging due to its unique fusion of organic comedy and fully realized performances. We are left to see the characters as they truly are when they deal with death, both of relationships and people. They’re neither wholly good nor bad. They’re just authentic.10) “The Avengers” — out on DVD and Blu-ray 2012’s highest-grossing film is also one its best. Fleshed-out and colorful characterization of superheroes that could easily fall flat make Marvel’s latest an absolute knockout from start to finish.
(02/14/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Widely reported to be Steven Soderbergh’s final theatrical release, “Side Effects” at first seems a curiously reserved and intimate film for the Academy Award-winning director to go out on. But what begins as a quiet drama rapidly boils into a menacingly suspenseful thriller, twisting and turning with a Hitchcock-ian precision. The nail-biting medical drama follows Emily Taylor, played with subdued fire by Rooney Mara. Emily is a depressed and potentially disturbed woman whose husband, played by Channing Tatum, has just been released from jail. Enter Jude Law as Dr. Jonathan Banks, exuding his usual British charm. Dr. Banks is a psychiatrist who prescribes her a new drug that has surprising consequences for the entire ensemble. In the style of his other contemporary works like “Contagion” and “Magic Mike,” Soderbergh shoots “Side Effects” in a supremely digital light, framing shots of tussled hair and prescription pill bottles with unequivocal expertise. He also trusts his actors enough to let the camera linger for upwards of 10 or 20 seconds, forgoing the usual quick cuts that more amateur directors regularly exploit. Through Soderbergh’s direction, we become the fly on the wall rather than the audience in the dark theater. As Emily plunges into the abyss that is America’s overmedicated culture, we follow her through every arch and bend of her illness. Mara, a true chameleon, channels the same calm intensity that garnered her an Academy Award nomination for “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.” She leads a tremendous cast that includes Catherine Zeta-Jones in her best performance in a decade and Channing Tatum continuing his streak of surprisingly great acting.But to overly review and analyze “Side Effects” would be a disservice to anyone who hasn’t seen it. The sinister bliss of watching it comes from the total shock you’re sure to experience as an audience member going in blind. Just know that if this really is Soberbergh’s swan song, he goes out with a bang.
(02/07/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Quite unexpectedly, the 2013 Oscar race has turned into the most varied and speculated awards season in public memory. Following the Academy’s controversial snub of Ben Affleck in the Best Director category, numerous groups have overwhelmingly awarded Affleck for his work on “Argo”, solidifying the 1970s foreign affairs thriller as the new frontrunner for Best Picture. But is over-praising “Argo” the solution for Affleck’s snub? I say no.Don’t get me wrong; I thought “Argo” was a brilliant achievement, especially for Affleck. But had Affleck been nominated for Best Director, I don’t think we’d be seeing such an overwhelming newfound support for the film at the Oscars. All of a sudden, the industry voting guilds have thrown a tremendous amount of support behind “Argo.” The Screen Actor’s Guild, Producer’s Guild of America and the Director’s Guild of America have all awarded “Argo” with their highest honors. Perhaps the PGA and DGA aren’t as surprising, but giving “Argo” the SAG for Outstanding Ensemble in a Motion Picture was a serious blow to the other eight Best Picture nominees at the Academy Awards. While “Argo” featured fine performances, especially from Hollywood vet Alan Arkin, it hasn’t seen much support for its acting as it has in other categories. Films like “Lincoln” and “Silver Linings Playbook” have received numerous accolades for multiple performers. Arkin is the only actor from “Argo” to receive widespread acclaim or an Oscar nomination. So an Outstanding Ensemble win for “Argo” shows a support that goes beyond merely honoring the film.While I certainly don’t have the ear of the Academy, I would implore them to remove their blinders and see the Oscar race for what it should be. A race for Best Picture between “Lincoln” and “Silver Linings Playbook” is exactly what would be happening without “The Ben Affleck Oscar Snub Apology Tour.” Both of those films have writing nominations, directing nominations and multiple acting nominations. “Silver Linings Playbook” is the first film in eight years to be up for what is called the “Academy’s Big Five,” meaning it’s nominated for Best Picture, Actor, Actress, Director and Screenplay, not to mention Best Supporting Actor and Actress.But even if “Argo” takes home the Oscar for Best Picture, that still leaves an Affleck-less Best Director race. While I’m personally rooting for David Russell’s gentle but searing work on “Silver Linings Playbook,” my money’s on Steven Spielberg. The two-time Oscar winning director is clearly an industry pro who has executed quality work for decades, and “Lincoln” is his finest film since 2005’s “Munich.” Come Oscar night, I certainly won’t be disappointed to see “Argo” take home Best Picture. It’s just a shame that it won’t be winning on its own merits.
(02/04/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Traditional textbooks aren’t the most effective way to educate, according to a new study from the University of Oklahoma. I urge IU to take notice, lest I need to bore my way through one more doorstop of a textbook. The study, which involved 140 undergraduate business seniors, split the participants into two groups. One group learned class material from a traditional textbook, while the other used a graphic novel instructing management skills by way of a fictional story of two young businessmen. Both groups covered the same topics in their respective readings. Students who learned class materials from the graphic novel were more likely to recognize and remember direct quotes from the reading than students who read from the textbook. In a similar study, 114 students were given a graphic novel textbook for a business course and 80 percent said they preferred it to a traditional textbook. Graphic novels have been on the rise as an art form for many years now. While they may not hold the same prestige as the novel, many artists and writers have popularized the format. Frank Miller wrote “Sin City” and “300,” two wildly admired graphic novels that were subsequently made into lucrative films. Similarly, Alan Moore’s “Watchmen” is the only graphic novel to appear in Time magazines “ALL-TIME 100 Greatest Novels” list. While the use of a graphic novel in the classroom may not speak to everyone, it could be a very smart investment for those who learn visually. Those of us who are right-brained would most benefit. Right-brained people respond more favorably to images, color, emotions, and creativity. So a graphic novel instead of a textbook would be more than ideal. Not to mention the obvious benefits to students studying subjects such as fine arts, writing, theater, English, design or other creativity-based degrees.But it’s important to remember the study was conducted with business students, who you could assume are more likely to be left-brained, meaning they respond more strongly to language, logic, numbers and critical thinking. And those students reacted positively to the use of the graphic novel in the classroom. While the study is brand new and still is years from being put into practice, it’s something IU should consider. As students, we spend more time reading seemingly endless amounts of textbook pages than any other school-related activity. There’s nothing that makes me want to tear my hair out more than page after page of reading, especially when I’m probably retaining less than 20 percent of the content. With graphic novels in the classroom, we may enjoy our class reading. Those students who rarely read may even be more inclined to do so. Instead of just mechanically listing material and content in a textbook, a graphic novel could present the material in a creative, real-world proficient manner. Reading — and learning — for school may just be exciting after all. — wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(01/31/13 5:00am)
J.J. Abrams directing "Star Wars: Episode VII" is the greatest decision since not letting George Lucas direct "Star Wars: Episode VII".
(01/28/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’m not a dieter. I don’t like exercising. And I’m extremely lucky because despite my aversion to maintaining a spectacularly healthy lifestyle, I don’t gain weight that easily.Plus, even if I do gain weight, I tend not to show it.Unless, of course, all my friends are lying and I’m blind. In that case, I’m screwed.But maintaining that everyone is relatively honest with me, I’m fortunate to say that coming to college two and a half years ago has done little to my figure.Sure, I’ve put on a few pounds. But it’s hardly unbecoming.We’ve all clicked through photos of our old high school classmates and marveled at the ones who ballooned in size. It just goes to show that our bodies all react differently when faced with the college lifestyle. Now, full disclosure. I weigh around 170 lbs.I don’t keep a scale in my apartment, but holiday season eating habits have made my jeans a little tighter. And although I’d love to see a six in that number instead of a seven, I’m still happy with my body. For my height, weight, age and degree of activeness, my healthy weight range is 136 to 178 lbs. But with the New Year, I thought, well, may as well do more to keep myself healthy.I attempted running for the first time in months and ended up inflaming the muscle that attaches your heel to your toes. I took it as a sign. Maybe I’ll work back up to running once this awful weather passes.With running out the window, I pondered a new route to a healthier lifestyle, which made me realize what my real addiction is. Sugar. I typically drink around two to three cups of hot tea a day and normally an iced tea or two in between. I usually put around three tablespoons of sugar in each one. A tablespoon of sugar contains 45 calories.Once I did the math and found that I consume somewhere between 400-500 calories a day, just in sugar. That’s nearly one fourth of what someone with my body should eat just to maintain my weight. The issue is that sugar is an empty calorie. According to a New York Times article published in 2011, “Refined sugar ... (doesn’t) come with any protein, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants or fiber, and so they either displace other more nutritious elements of our diet or are eaten over and above what we need to sustain our weight, and this is why we get fatter.” Our bodies simply don’t break down sugar well and it stays in our cells, making us fat. Since the start of the new year, I haven’t put a single grain of sugar in my tea. It’s a struggle everyday and I’m still getting used to it. But it’s bizarre how such a small change has made me feel better.My sleeping pattern, once as bad as the typical college student’s, is beginning to become somewhat normal.I feel skinnier and less sluggish, and even my skinny jeans are becoming less of a hassle to get on. As a college student, it isn’t easy to diet. Most of us don’t have the time or monetary resources to buy the healthiest food and prepare it. So consider a small, easy change. Don’t add that sugar packet to your coffee. Take an extra helping of fruits or veggies instead of the excess carbs. It’s the small changes that will pay off in the end. — wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(01/24/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ve had a saying for a few years now. Bisexuals are like unicorns. You really want them to exist. But they just don’t. And there are a lot of people who won’t give up hope.Last week, HBO’s original comedy series “Girls” returned. Main character Hannah’s new roommate/gay ex-boyfriend Elijah drunkenly decreed, “People are so prejudiced against bisexuals, though. It’s like, the only group of people you can still make fun of. It’s like, bisexuals and Germans.” It’s true. It’s very difficult in our society to believe in something as free-spirited as bisexuality. For one, it’s threatening. For heterosexuals and homosexuals, we have to contend with only being attracted to half of the population. Those odds aren’t terrific. For someone who’s bisexual, the world is their genital oyster. It’s actually a very picturesque image. Men, women, who cares? I’m attracted to everyone. Unfortunately, I find it just too good to be true. Now, I am not bisexual. And I cannot claim with 100 percent certainty that bisexuality isn’t real. I also can’t assert assurance on things like Bigfoot, John F. Kennedy’s assassination or the contention of Jesus’ divinity. But I’m pretty sure I’m somewhere in the right ballpark on those topics as well. The real issue has to do with the male psyche and sexuality. In our American culture, it’s a mostly accepted commonality that heterosexual men enjoy the image of two women kissing, fornicating, etc. And why shouldn’t they? Women are certainly the fairer and more sensual of the sexes. Two women going at it is A-OK to me.The same notion just doesn’t extend to heterosexual women. You’d be hard pressed to find a straight woman finding the same sexual stimulation from watching two men go at it. Is this fair? Not really. But after years of men grind stoning women’s sexuality to the fine powder it is today, why should anyone be the wiser? Two women going at it? Crack a beer and enjoy. Two men going at it? Ultimate party foul. It’s typically pretty hard to party once the gay bomb drops.Call me a cynic, but I can’t begin to believe in bisexuality in a society where men’s sexuality isn’t nearly as fluid as women’s. Recently in Hollywood, loads of successful women have come out as bisexual. Celebrities like Evan Rachel Wood, Lady Gaga and Megan Fox have admitted to loving the ladies. It’s empowering. The same just doesn’t go for men. We still exist in a culture where the masses can’t accept a homosexual, let alone a bisexual, leaving man on the same level as a woman of any sexuality.But the future may be bright. Frank Ocean is one example of a successful man who’s admitted to having a relationship with a man. He’s now sitting pretty atop six Grammy nominations. Maybe we can look forward to a future where girls squeal over two men physically expressing their love in the same manner that heterosexual men love lesbian porn. But until then, the jury’s still out for me on bisexuality.— wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(01/24/13 2:59am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The action-adventure genre has always struggled with the perception and portrayal of women. It began with complaints of women being severely under-represented. They were deemed too delicate and fragile, the typical damsels in distress. Then they just felt like token stock characters. While powerful women have populated comic books for decades, that formula has mostly failed on the big screen. A Wonder Woman motion picture has sat in development hell for years, and a TV pilot for the golden-lassoed crusader was recently passed over by all the major networks. Since 2002, when Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” made superhero films the box office draw they are today, there has yet to be a successful superhero franchise based on a woman. But this past year offered some much-needed hope to the cause. With the release of “The Hunger Games” last March, Hollywood had its first driven and reputable female hero with Jennifer Lawrence’s fiery portrayal of Katniss Everdeen. Based on the popular book series, it isn’t too much of a surprise that the film was one of the highest grossing of the year. Katniss might not be the textbook definition of a “superhero,” but in the vein of fellow literary darling Harry Potter, she’s an archetypal everywoman put through an impossible ringer of struggle and survival. While “The Hunger Games” never glorifies Lawrence’s, and by extension Katniss’, beauty, many complain modern action-adventure heroines are too sexualized. In May, we saw the release of 2012’s most successful film, “The Avengers.” Scarlett Johansson played the deadly — and sexy — Black Widow/Natasha Romanoff. While the film is immensely enjoyable, and one of the best of the year, Johansson’s character too often feels like the token gal in the boy’s club. In one shot, the camera pans around all the Avengers as they prepare to battle. Thor wields his mighty hammer, Hulk smashes, Captain America strikes defensibly with his impregnable shield. Then Black Widow cocks a handgun. Really? She brings a gun to a missile fight? Get real. Similarly, in July’s “The Dark Knight Rises,” Anne Hathaway portrays cat burglar Selena Kyle with oodles of sex appeal. But in this instance, in a colossal franchise with a distinct lack of female charisma, it worked. Yes, she was classically beautiful — not to mention sexy — and slinked around Gotham in a skin-tight leather suit. But she held her own against both Bane and Batman. Her sexuality was a weapon, not a postscript that defined her character. Maybe this isn’t what feminism is going for in the long run. But it isn’t as if our male superheroes aren’t sexualized as well. Christian Bale, Robert Downey Jr. and Tobey Maguire aren’t exactly hard to look at. Plus, they tend to bounce around fighting crime in layers of spandex and chest enhancing breast plates. Pardon me for having my cake and eating it, too, but it seems to me that our superheroes, regardless of gender, can be evocative, deep characters without losing an ounce of sex appeal. Plus, let’s face it: No one wants to watch a superhero movie where an overweight and paunchy actress or actor squeezes themselves into some hot, skintight number. We’re just not ready for that as a society.