Our Imaginary Pedestals

Oscar Pistorius

    In American society, many people think very highly of their "heroes," especially those in sports. Sometimes we might forget that in reality, we know nothing about these people except for what we make them out to be in our imagination. Friday night at the Blackhawks game I found myself talking about Jonathan Toews (the captain of the team) as if I had known him my whole life, when of course that is not actually the case. Outside of hockey, Toews, at least from what the public sees, has a pretty clean record. On the other hand, there are many athletes that are, or at one point were, looked up to, who are not as great in the real world as they are in a sports game.
    As this NPR podcast states, "These have certainly been dispiriting times for those who admire athletes, who proclaim that sports build character." The word that stands out here is "dispiriting," meaning to cause someone to lose hope. When someone finds out something bad about their favorite athlete, they will at first be upset and down on hope, but it is likely that in no time they will have moved onto a new athlete to place on their pedestal. Recently, there have been several incidents that prove that sports may, in fact, do the opposite of "build character." The most extreme example would be Oscar Pistorius, who killed his girlfriend on February 14. Many looked up to Pistorius, a paraplegic olympian, for his courage and determination, but paid no attention to the fact that even before the olympics, he was accused of assault and spent a night in jail for it. Other athletes, including cyclist Lance Armstrong, have been proven to have used performance-enhancing drugs. To add to the list, as said in the NPR podcast, "Our glorious intercollegiate football champion, Alabama, has given us three student-athletes who were...allegedly mugging real student-students." The list goes on and on, but what does this mean for us sports-watchers? I can't help but think about all the young children who look up to people who may be good at playing a sports game, but are definitely not good role models outside of the sport. Why do we think so highly of people who excel as an athlete, but oftentimes not as people?

And the Oscar goes to...

     The Oscars are fast approaching. People are buzzing about who they think will win this award and that award, about what color Anne Hathaway will wear, and, of course, about what movie will win best picture. There are nine movies nominated in this category: Amour, Silver Linings Playbook, Lincoln, Life of Pi, Argo, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Zero Dark Thirty, Django Unchained, and Les Miserables. I am proud to say that I have seen three of these movies, which is actually quite a lot for me. The truth is, though, I may not have seen any of them had they not been nominated for an Oscar. I mean really, who wants to watch an Award show when they haven't even seen any of the movies? In fact, I think that the Oscars and other award shows probably shape the way that people, including myself, look at certain things. For example, if a person sees a movie that is up for an Oscar, it is doubtful that they will criticize it as much as they might have if it wasn't up for one. If it's up for best picture, is just has to be a "good" movie, right?!?
     The question is, how can we classify a movie as "good"? What qualifications must it achieve? I saw "Lincoln" and really enjoyed it. That said, there are parts of the movie that send the watcher completely false information. An article in the New York times states that, ""Lincoln" falsely showed two of Connecticut’s House members voting “Nay” against the 13th Amendment for the abolition of slavery." The motive behind this was most likely to make for a more suspenseful climax of the movie, but in my opinion, in a movie such as "Lincoln," it is more important that the watcher receives, at least for the most part, accurate historical information. Tony Kushner, who wrote the screenplay of Lincoln, responded to the criticism, stating that it is okay to “manipulate a small detail in the service of a greater historical truth." The word that stands out to me here is "manipulate," which means to alter or edit. Even in a movie, I am not sure the extent to which it really should be okay to alter history. In another movie up for best picture, "Argo," President Carter's chief of staff, Hamilton Jordan, is portrayed as having children, when in reality he did not have any at the time. Finally, there's Zero Dark Thirty, in which, as Maureen Dowd writes, it is shown that "torture was instrumental in the capture of Osama." Don't get me wrong, I will definitely be tuning into the Oscars this Sunday, but I wonder, to what extent is it okay to alter history in order to make a movie more dramatic?

A New Hobby

    A President's life is completely staged, which is exactly why it seems suspicious that the picture in this post was recently released by the White House. Obama claims that he has a new hobby, skeet shooting. The photo was released just two days before the President left to promote his gun-control proposals, so clearly there was some motive behind the photo. In an interview, Obama claimed that he skeet shoots "all time time," but based on his stance and position of the gun, the National Skeet Shooting Association pointed out, Obama is definitely a beginner. This article in the New York Times quotes Obama saying, "I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake.” The word that stands out to me here is "respect" because Obama, by releasing this picture, is seemingly trying to gain respect from gun rights supporters in an effort to ban gun rights. The National Rifle Association is not buying it, though. They do not think that skeet shooting proves someone, even the President, as being a supporter of the second amendment.
    It seems pretty clear that this photo being released was no coincidence. This picture could have been put out months ago and it would have made it seem a little bit more realistic, but instead it just so happens to be released just as Obama is heading out to talk about gun control. It was never even mentioned that Obama had ever shot before, which makes it even more unrealistic. What do you think the motive of releasing this picture was? In what ways, if any, would this picture have affect on defenders of the Second Amendment?