popular culture

Jim Halpert is looking at all of us

Anonymous — Mon, 05 Aug 2024 20:21:18 +0000

Jim Halpert is looking at all of us Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 08/05/2024 - 14:21

Rachel Sauer

In a recently published paper, CU Boulder PhD student Cooper Casale interrogates Jim Halpert’s direct-to-camera gaze in The Office and its similarities to what he calls the ‘fascist look'

A couple of years ago, Cooper Casale was dating a woman who loved the American version of “The Office.” Despite having watched seasons two and three on repeat in middle school so he’d have something to talk about with a girl he liked, a decade had passed and he wasn’t really a fan anymore.

“But I end up being sucked into it,” recalls Casale, a PhD student in the University of Colorado Boulder Department of English. “I watched all the way through multiple times—it becomes a kind of hypnosis. It was just always on.”

Through nine seasons and repeated watching, Casale began to wonder: Is Jim Halpert looking at me?

In a newly published paper, CU Boulder PhD student Cooper Casale argues that the Jim Halpert gaze represents the punitive aspects of mainstream culture that are foundational to enforcing and maintaining capitalism.

In the 650 times that Jim Halpert (played by actor John Krasinski) looks at the camera through those nine seasons—there’s even a 10-minute compilation video of them on YouTube—Casale began considering what or who he was seeing in the Jim Halpert gaze: the pitiless scientist, the capitalist boss or the fascist father? Or perhaps all three?

In a paper recently published in the Journal of Popular Culture, Casale considers how the Jim Halpert gaze is also the fascist look.

“The Fascist Look enlists its subjects into their make-believe hero's service, a role audiences want to occupy,” Casale writes. “They want to please Halpert, as the worker wants to please the foreman. Their peculiar loyalty partly explains ‘The Office's’ remarkably enduring popularity…

“Halpert's Gaze arms people against their feckless bosses, slovenly neighbors and annoying coworkers. At the same time, his frozen glare, his pranks and his sarcasm represent the punitive aspects of mainstream culture that are foundational to enforcing and maintaining capitalism. Halpert does not critique his corporate arrangement but merely masters it. He becomes its boss, and viewers enamored by his cruel fiction but powerless to act it out, choose, in Halpert, a more nightmarish boss than they had before. Furthermore, viewers are thankful because he reminds them that the great can still overcome the small.”

Microdosing work

First, though, a sorry-not-sorry: While Casale appreciates a lot of the humor in “The Office,” he increasingly resents its popularity now that remote work is so common. He wanted to understand how the “almost liturgical pattern in which some people watch it” has become a sort of surrogate to having an in-person, so-called work family, he explains. “There are some who never turn it off. When I was in publication for this paper, my editor was like, ‘You can’t prove that,’ and I can’t, not yet, but there’s an observably strange practice in people watching this show on rotation all the time.

“So, the initiating question was ‘Why do people come home from a 9 to 5 and immediately watch a show about 9 to 5?’ Theodor Adorno wrote about this in his essay ‘Free Time,’ about how free time is itself a kind of work. We have to spend those hours after work preparing to return to work, so people watching ‘The Office’ is almost like microdosing having to go back to work.”

In the character of Jim Halpert, Casale says, “The Office” established an everyman protagonist—a frustrated dreamer and creative type who somehow ends up in a meaningless job at the world’s most boring business. When he looks directly at the camera, he conveys that he recognizes the absurdity and ridiculousness around him and that he is somehow above it.

Citing another Adorno work, “Dialectic of Enlightenment,” which observes that enlightenment and barbarism are often linked, Casale notes that “Jim Halpert represents this enlightened corporate subject. He’s presented as smarter than everyone else, but we see how fast that enlightenment has to express itself through barbarism or violence in the pranks he’s constantly pulling on Dwight.

Actor John Krasinski played the character Jim Halpert in "The Office" and looked directly at the camera 650 times over nine seasons. (Photo: NBC Universal)

“Dwight’s biggest crime in the whole show is that he likes his job. He’s presented as naïve, sentimental, he likes beets and ‘Battlestar Galactica,’ and because of his sentiment he must be punished. We’re meant to believe that Jim really deserves to be somewhere else, and he’s only there because he’s unlucky, but it’s everyone else’s fate to be there. Kevin will never do better, Stanley will never do better, but it’s Jim’s fate to overcome the circumstances of his life. We’re meant to find his cruelty affable.”

“The Office” reaffirms the strange hierarchies of corporate America but sells them as quirky, Casale says. Its documentary style becomes a two-way mirror between Jim Halpert and viewers—in Jim’s disgust, annoyance, resentment or bemusement, viewers have a proxy in lieu of their own documentary camera recording their reactions to the clowns and fools around them.

Interrogating power

The Jim Halpert gaze becomes the fascist look when considered through the lens of power, Casale says: “We have this TV show teaching me that the best way to express my power is to lend it to somebody else who can punish people in my stead. It’s similar to how a vote for an autocrat is a vote to not have to vote anymore. We see it in the working class voting for Donald Trump, who’s only going to give tax breaks to the rich. But because they want to be rich, there’s an aspect of living out their dreams through him.

“I think people always struggle with how members of the working class can vote against their self-interest. Part of it, I think, is that people’s resources to express themselves or express some kind of autonomy are so impoverished that their last opportunity to be free is to live in surrogate through someone else. If Jim Halpert can prank these people and humiliate all his coworkers, then I can live vicariously through Jim Halpert.”

Casale adds that rather than interrogating the structures of power and capitalism that Jim Halpert ostensibly gazes against, “The Office” emphasizes a message that mimicking the behaviors of power will lead to having power. In “The Office,” Jim Halpert is in control—not Michael, not Dwight, nor any of the other characters to essentially serve as his minstrels.

“I think that’s the fascist myth,” Casale says. “It’s a desire to be dominated so I can learn the procedures of how to dominate others. In my own domination, I learn what it feels like and how I can do it. We see this with any kind of autocrat, including Jim Halpert. When Donald Trump says he wants retribution, there are thousands upon thousands of regular, pretty nice people who say, ‘I want retribution, too.’ And because they won’t direct their anger to capitalism, the real culprit, they have to have proxy wars about DEI, gender, immigration, whatever else, so they won’t have to focus on the real cause of their powerlessness.”

Top images: NBC Universal

Did you enjoy this article? Subcribe to our newsletter. Passionate about English? Show your support.

In a recently published paper, CU Boulder PhD student Cooper Casale interrogates Jim Halpert’s direct-to-camera gaze in The Office and its similarities to what he calls the ‘fascist look.'

Off

Traditional

White

Loving the losing baseball team

Anonymous — Mon, 15 Jul 2024 21:48:38 +0000

Loving the losing baseball team Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 07/15/2024 - 15:48

Bradley Worrell

In advance of Tuesday’s Major League Baseball All-Star game, CU Boulder history professor Martin Babicz offers thoughts on why some fans remain loyal to baseball’s perennial losers

Every season, one Major League Baseball team earns champion success in the World Series while the rest place behind. And within that second group are a few teams that are the absolute stinkers of the league.

Think the Colorado Rockies in 2023, with just 59 wins versus 109 losses—and with a record of not scoring better than fourth place in their division for five years in a row.

Why do some fans stay loyal to such losers?

Martin Babicz, a CU Boulder associate teaching professor of history, co-wrote the 2017 book National Pastime: U.S. History Through Baseball.

Martin Babicz, a University of Colorado Boulder associate teaching professor of history, has some ideas. An instructor in the Department of History, the Stories and Societies RAP (Residential Academic Program), the Creative Minds RAP and the CMCI RAP, Babicz teaches a course called America Through Baseball, which examines American history since the Civil War, exploring how the social, cultural, economic and political forces shaping America were reflected in the national pastime. He’s also the co-author of the 2017 book National Pastime: U.S. History Through Baseball.

Growing up in New England in the 1960s and 1970s, Babicz had plenty of chances to see Boston Red Sox and New York Mets fans lament their losing baseball teams on an almost-yearly basis. It’s given him insights on why fans stay loyal to losing teams, what factors can cause fans to lose faith in their teams and what he sees as the value of having a team to root for—no matter how bad they are, which he discussed with Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine.

Question: In sports, Americans generally love winning teams. Why do you think some people stay loyal to perennial losers?

Babicz: That’s a good question, and I’ve thought about this on and off for years.

Baseball teams—in fact all sports teams—are local institutions. The Broncos, for instance, are a part of the fabric of Denver, just like the Rocky Mountains or Casa Bonita. But it is more than that. Sports teams are also family institutions. They are a part of our DNA, as support for the team is often passed along in a family from one generation to another. And just like a family won’t reject a child who is not as smart or as good looking as his siblings, it also won’t reject a sports team that is not as good as its competitors.

I think the Chicago Cubs and the Boston Red Sox might provide an illustration, as they both have very loyal fans. In 1998, both the Cubs and the Red Sox qualified for a wild-card playoff team. The wild card, which at the time was a relatively new thing in baseball, is a playoff berth awarded to a team that did not finish in first place.

Both the Red Sox and the Cubs had reputations for going on a very long losing streak of not winning the World Series, and there was some concern in baseball about what would happen if either of those teams ended up winning the World Series. Would the sport lose some of its luster among those fans? Would the teams lose some of their following?

Well, neither team won it in 1998, but the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004, and the Cubs won it in 2016—and it didn’t damage the teams at all. Winning hasn’t hurt their popularity, so it’s not like you have to be a loser to be loved.

But if you look at the history of baseball, there have been baseball teams who did not do so well.

Think about the Washington Senators, the St. Louis Browns, or the Philadelphia Athletics. They went decades and decades with lousy teams and yet baseball remained popular in those cities. …

Disappointed Chicago Cubs fans watch their team lose to the Colorado Rockies during a May 2019 game. (Photo: Nuccio DiNuzzo/Chicago Tribune)

Question: It sounds like if a team has deep roots in a city, that can be a strong factor on whether fans will generally remain faithful?

Babicz: Yes, fans tend to remain faithful to teams that have deep roots in the community. Support for the team—even a losing team—becomes routine, almost ritualistic.

Take opening day, for instance. Some fans develop habits of skipping work or school and attending opening day every year, no matter how good or bad the local team is. And for many fans, tuning in the game on the radio is something they do whenever they are doing yardwork or work around the house, and they’ll continue to tune in, even if the team is lousy. And, of course, when an opportunity presents itself to attend a game, they’ll take it, even if they think their team won’t win.

And as I said, support for a sports team is often passed from parent to child. But if there wasn’t a team when your father and mother grew up, then there’s nothing to pass to you. …

If you look at football, Denver got a football team in 1960, and Miami got a football team in 1966. In those two markets, football had several decades to get established and to build a fan base before they were competing (for fans’ attention) against baseball teams. So, I wonder, had Denver gotten a baseball team in the early 1960s, would that team be as popular in the media as the Broncos are?

It really surprises me that almost every night it’s the Broncos who lead the sports news—even when it’s not football season. And it’s not like that in some other markets; it’s certainly not like that back east. Football is popular there, but the other sports get their day as well.

Question: Which professional baseball team has the worst record? Were they able to eventually turn things around?

Babicz: The worst team ever was the 1899 Cleveland Spiders. They won 20 games all year, but that was in the 1890s. The National League had a monopoly on teams and there were 12 teams in total. After that season was over, the National League decided to cut back to eight teams—and one of the four teams they eliminated was the Cleveland Spiders. So, they never had the opportunity to recover.

Baseball teams—in fact all sports teams—are local institutions. The Broncos, for instance, are a part of the fabric of Denver, just like the Rocky Mountains or Casa Bonita. But it is more than that. Sports teams are also family institutions. They are a part of our DNA, as support for the team is often passed along in a family from one generation to another.”

Question Are there any corollaries between winning and losing teams and the impact upon game attendance?

Babicz: Some interesting numbers can be seen with the New York Mets. New York City lost two teams in 1958, when the New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers moved to California. And so the Yankees were left to dominate New York baseball until the Mets were created in 1962.

The first thing that just amazes me, and it doesn’t make any sense, is that if you look at the attendance of the Yankees in 1957, they drew 1.5 million people. The following year, they drew 1.4 million. Why would the Yankee attendance go down in 1958, if they no longer have competition? And the Yankees won the World Series in 1958, so it’s not like they were no longer a good team.

So, that’s the first thing that surprises me. But the second thing that surprises me is what happened when the Mets came to New York in 1962. That first year, they were absolutely terrible, but they drew 922,000 fans. But in 1963, the Mets, who were still a bad team, drew over a million people—and the attendance at Yankee stadium fell to 1.3 million, even though the Yankees were still pennant winners.

And in 1964, when the Mets were still a last-place team, they drew 1.7 million fans while the Yankees—who won the American League pennant that year—only drew 1.3 million fans. So, this last-place team is drawing 400,000 more fans than the American League pennant winners. And by 1969, when the Mets finally won the World Series, the Yankees drew just over a million fans, and the Mets drew 2 million fans.

I find those numbers interesting in that there’s something else going on in addition to not having competition or just being a winning team. … My thought is that baseball fans in New York, at least some of them, felt betrayed when they lost the Giants and Dodgers, and then they rallied to the Mets, even though they were bad for so many years.

Colorado Rockies fans watch the team lose to the Arizona Diamondbacks in a August 2023 game. (Photo: Hugh Carey/The Colorado Sun)

Question: Is there any evidence to suggest fans will stop being loyal to their losing team at some point?

Babicz: Well, the example of that is in the San Francisco Bay area right now, where the Oakland Athletics are leaving Oakland after the end of the season. Last year, the Athletics were the only major league team to draw fewer than a million fans; I believe there were about 800,000 people who went to an A’s game last year.

Now, in the Bay area, they already have the Giants, so there is another team there. But there is also frustration by many Oakland fans, who blame the team owner for not trying in good faith to stay in Oakland. So, you have to consider how much that has to do with the decline of attendance.

The other city that we saw lose a lot of fans was in Montreal, and that can almost completely be traced to the 1994-95 baseball strike that canceled the World Series. The Expos had the best record in baseball at the time and a strong fan base.

Many fans really expected Montreal to make it to the World Series, and perhaps even win it, but it was all scratched when the strike took place and the World Series was canceled. A lot of Expos fans felt betrayed, and they did not return to the game the following season. After a few seasons, Expo fans were still no longer supporting their team.

Major League Baseball later transferred the Montreal Expos to Washington, D.C., where they became the Washington Nationals.

So, it wasn’t so much having a losing team as it was this sense of betrayal. And I think there’s some of that in Oakland as well. That may be a bigger factor on (fan loyalty) than having a winning or losing team.

Question: Some teams were losers for years—even decades—and then eventually turned things around. Does that mean Rockies fans should keep the faith, or is that asking too much?

Babicz: I’ve thought about that since I moved here from the East Coast. So, the Rockies aren’t in the playoffs. I’d say, ‘Be excited that you have a baseball team and go to the games.’

Colorado Rockies pitcher Kyle Freeland lies on the field after an RBI single during a game against the Houston Astros in July 2023. (Photo: Kevin M. Cox/AP)

In the first 68 years of the 20th century, only one team in each league qualified for post-season play, and from 1969 to 1993, only two teams in each league qualified for post-season play. Baseball is about a lot more than just making the playoffs.

I think back to being a kid, remembering those Red Sox fans who would keep going to Fenway Park year after year even though the team hadn’t won the World Series since 1918. The other thing I think about is, although I grew up in southern New England, I was born in upstate New York, and one of the cities that competed with Denver to get a Major League Baseball team was Buffalo.

When MLB announced the Rockies and the Marlins as the expansion teams, Buffalo didn’t get a team. In fact, other than during the pandemic, when the Toronto Blue Jays played in Buffalo—because Canada wasn’t admitting people from the U.S. into Canada—Buffalo hasn’t had a Major League Baseball team in over a hundred years. I’m sure fans in upstate New York would love to have a baseball team—even if it was a losing team.

Now, you may think, ‘The Rockies are a terrible team.’ True. But at least there’s a team. Those fans in Buffalo don’t even have a major league team to root for.

Just because your team doesn’t make the playoffs is no reason to give up turning out to support your team. With playoff berths, there’s always a chance … next year.

Top image: Rockies fans react to a play during a game between the Colorado Rockies and the Arizona Diamondbacks at Coors Field on Aug. 16, 2023.(Photo: Grace Smith/The Denver Post)

Did you enjoy this article? Subcribe to our newsletter. Passionate about history? Show your support.

In advance of Tuesday’s Major League Baseball All-Star game, CU Boulder history professor Martin Babicz offers thoughts on why some fans remain loyal to baseball’s perennial losers.

Off

Traditional

White

Anything but a bomb, 'Dr. Strangelove' turns 60

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Feb 2024 07:00:00 +0000

Anything but a bomb, 'Dr. Strangelove' turns 60 Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 02/27/2024 - 00:00

Bradley Worrell

CU Boulder’s chair of Cinema Studies and Moving Image Arts shares insights on Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece ‘doomsday sex comedy’ and why the film is more relevant than ever

In early 1964, U.S. Air Force Gen. Jack D. Ripper ordered his bomber group to launch a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union to defend the purity of “our precious bodily fluids” from communist subversion.

Fortunately for the state of U.S.-Soviet relations at the time—and for the planet—the surprise attack was entirely fictional, serving as the plot for the movie Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, director Stanley Kubrick’s dark comedy that satirized Cold War tensions while also offering up a heaping dose of sexual innuendo.

In the years since its debut, Dr. Strangelove has joined the pantheon of Kubrick’s great films, which also includes classics such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange and The Shining.

Ernesto R. Acevedo-Muñoz, chair of Cinema Studies and Moving Image Arts at CU Boulder, who has been teaching a course on Stanley Kubrick as a filmmaker for more than 20 years.

With this year marking the 60th anniversary of Dr. Strangelove’s debut, Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine recently asked Ernesto R. Acevedo-Muñoz, chair of Cinema Studies and Moving Image Arts at University of Colorado Boulder, who has been teaching a course on Stanley Kubrick as a filmmaker for more than 20 years, for insights into the making of the film and why it has retained its cultural relevance. His responses have been lightly edited for style and condensed for space considerations.

Question: Kubrick made a number of memorable films. How much time during your course do you devote to Dr. Strangelove?

Acevedo-Muñoz: There’s an advantage in that Stanley Kubrick only finished 13 movies and a normal semester is 14 weeks—and since this isn’t a comparative course, it’s more like the history of a filmmaker’s aesthetics and history of a filmmaker’s concerns—then we’re able to talk about all the movies he did.

And, unlike my Alfred Hitchcock course—Hitchcock completed 52 films, so to curate 14 out of 52, you have to start cutting here, cutting there, and being very jealous about the period that you’re going to cover—with Kubrick, we don’t have that problem. We start the first week of classes by watching his two shorts that we have access to and his first feature film, which is only 67 minutes.

And we talk about all the Kubrick movies all the time. I make reference to some visual moment in his early movies where I say, ‘Look at this here, we’re going to see this again in Dr. Strangelove, and we’re going to see this again in 2001: A Space Odyssey.’

Question: How you would describe Dr. Strangelove, if you had to describe it succinctly for people?

Acevedo-Muñoz: Well, I would make a very simple amendment to how Kubrick described this movie. We refer to it as a doomsday comedy, with the irony implied in that label. But I would add the word ‘sex’ to that label. So, it’s a doomsday sex comedy.

As the observant or the dirty minded will quickly realize, the movie is full of sexual innuendo and most of the punch lines in the movie are some kind of sexual innuendo.

It’s a doomsday comedy, but it’s really a doomsday sex comedy all the way up to and including the very explosive, orgasmic series of nuclear events at the end, with the irony of the lyrics, ‘We’ll meet again. Don’t know where. Don’t know when.’

When we saw the movie as kids, we were laughing at Peter Sellers doing Peter Sellers things—the body comedy, the farcical situations and such. But then seeing the movie again as an adult, there comes a moment where you realize, ‘Oh, wait a minute. I see now all these airplanes penetrating each other. That’s sexual innuendo. And the way Dr. Strangelove’s right arm keeps raising up in salute, that’s sexual innuendo.’

A working title of this movie was, I sh-t you not, The Rise of Dr. Strangelove. I’m not making this up.

Question: Besides the political and satire, what are other aspects of the film that you share with your class?

Acevedo-Muñoz: We spend a lot of time talking about two things in particular: the production design—what the sets look like and what the function of the of the movie sets are—and special effects.

A scene from the war room in Dr. Strangelove (Photo: Columbia Pictures Corporation)

In the case of Dr. Strangelove, when we talk about the production design, we’re talking particularly about the war room. There are stories, which may or may not be apocryphal, of the CIA and intelligence agencies being concerned about how Kubrick and his production designer, a man named Ken Adam, had come up with the set design, because it looked like the real thing.

The same goes for the interior of the bomber, which again, Ken Adam, the production designer, he’d been a Royal Air Force pilot during the war, so he knew what a bomber looked like. But then he had to sort of bring that up to speed 20 years, to the mid-1960s.

It’s really fantastic that Kubrick would put so much emphasis in production design of spaces that nobody has ever seen. Or nobody who isn’t part of a very special, small elite.

Do you know what the interior of the war room looks like? No, nobody does. So, how did Kubrick and Adam come up with this part? It’s one of the truly amazing things.

An important part of the movie is that all the action is contained within these confined spaces that are treated with this deadpan realism. And they have to be functional spaces. In fact, the lights that you see in the war room are actually doing the lighting of the set. That’s extremely rare.

The other thing I mentioned is special effects. Those might look primitive to contemporary audiences, but they are decidedly state of the art. Consider what we see with the B-52 in flight and the explosions.

With Dr. Strangelove, a significant part of the budget went to production design and special effects.

Question: Beyond the production elements, are there other notable or distinguishable elements about this film?

Acevedo-Muñoz: Few people realize that Dr. Strangelove takes places in real time. We have a phone call at the opening of the movie and the doomsday machine goes off at the end of the movie, and in between that we have about 89 minutes of action in which at no point is there a discernible time ellipsis.

Real time is a very hard thing to pull off in cinema. Kubrick was not the first one to do it, but this was his only real-time movie. It is admirable how compact this movie is kept in terms of its narrative structure.

In terms of story structure, that’s a very difficult thing to do, and this is a function of both the writing and editing to maintain a movie in real time. You have to write it that way, and then you have to edit it in a way that these transitions are seamless. It’s a major reason why Dr. Strangelove got an Oscar nomination for best adapted screenplay.

I should mention the movie is based on a book, Red Alert, which is dead serious. Kubrick determined that the scenario was so demented that the only way to do the film was to make it a comedy.

Director Stanely Kubrick on the set of Dr. Strangelove in 1963 (Photo: Columbia Pictures Corporation)

To do that, he hired American humorist Terry Southern, who is really the person who shares most of the screenwriting credit with Kubrick. Southern was a humorist and a playwright and a screenwriter, and when Kubrick needed a funny person to come up with this script and make it absurd and yet believable, he came to Terry Southern, so I always emphasize that connection with my students. Coincidentally, Terry Southern’s son, Nile, is a long-time Boulder resident.

Question: How was Dr. Strangelove was received by the film critics and by the greater audiences when it debuted in 1964? Have perceptions of the movie changed over time?

Acevedo-Muñoz: The movie was a huge hit, commercially. Some critics may have been baffled by it, but the reviews were largely positive. The movie got four Oscar nominations, which was quite a feat at that time. It was Kubrick’s first nomination for best director, along with best screenplay. The movie was nominated for best picture, and it was nominated for best actor for Peter Sellers, of course.

In the end, Kubrick made some decisions where things could have gone differently. The movie originally was going to end with a big pie fight. They tried the ending and it kind of fell flat. So, he dropped that and gave us that ending that was sort of improvised with the orgasmic series of nuclear explosions. …

Today, Dr. Strangelove is regarded as a classic.

Question: How do you view Dr. Strangelove in relation to Fail Safe, which was released after Dr. Strangelove and which offered a serious take on the possibility of a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union?

Ernesto R. Acevedo-Muñoz:Fail Safe was perfectly well-received when it came out. It was made by Sidney Lumet, a respected director, and starred Henry Fonda playing the president of the United States. …

The original movie poster for Dr. Strangelove (Photo: Columbia Pictures Corporation)

It’s just that not every movie—even every good movie—is destined to be a classic. We don’t know if a movie is destined to be a classic until some time has gone by. But today, you didn’t call me to talk about Fail Safe, did you? We’re talking about Dr. Strangelove.

And Dr. Strangelove still gets shown on Turner Classic Movies and sometimes in movie theaters, and people still get up off of their asses and go to see it. That staying power is attributable to a lot of different elements, which is why it’s never possible to predict if a movie will become a classic.

Kubrick also made Barry Lyndon, which is the most gorgeous movie ever made. Period. And this was the movie that Kubrick wanted to be remembered for. And do you know what happened? Nobody remembers it. So, you never know.

Question: Do you think Dr. Strangelove was Kubrick’s most political movie?

Acevedo-Muñoz: Kubrick always said he wasn’t a political filmmaker, but you only have to look at his movies to realize that they are, in fact, political movies. … And I should add any movie made in the 1960s with a Cold War setting and the nuclear race as part of its environment is, by definition, political.

The fact that Kubrick and Terry Southern have both the president of the United States and the premier of the Soviet Union come out looking like complete morons is a political statement. And having the military establishment filled with this toxic masculinity is a political statement, which Kubrick went on to do even more transparently in Full Metal Jacket. …

Or look at the Slim Pickens character, Major King Kong, who rides the bomb between his legs like a bull, waving his 10-gallon Stetson hat as his cowboy persona takes over. That’s a political statement.

Question: The Cold War officially ended in the 1990s. Do you think Dr. Strangelove has the same relevance today that it did back in the day?

Acevedo-Muñoz: The cold war is over? We are having more tensions with 91��Ƭ�� today than we have had in 30 or 40 years, since the 1980s.

Frankly, as long as there are lunatics with their finger on the nuclear button—and I’m thinking here of Kim Jong Un, I’m thinking of Vladimir Putin and I’m thinking of Donald Trump—this movie will be as relevant as ever, if not more. I have no qualms making a comment like that.

Precisely because it’s comedy, it also has that kind of lasting power. As the great American philosopher Homer Simpson says, ‘It’s funny because it’s true.’

It’s why we take movies seriously—and it’s why we’re celebrating 60 years of Dr. Strangelove. Hopefully at 70 years we’ll be celebrating it as a cautionary tale rather than as a prophecy.

Top image: Peter Sellers playing the titular Dr. Strangelove (Photo: Columbia Pictures Corporation)

Did you enjoy this article? Subcribe to our newsletter. Passionate about cinema studies and moving image arts? Show your support.

CU Boulder’s chair of Cinema Studies and Moving Image Arts shares insights on Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece ‘doomsday sex comedy’ and why the film is more relevant than ever.

Off

Traditional

White

After 75 years, ‘Death of a Salesman’ still packs a gut punch

Anonymous — Tue, 20 Feb 2024 18:22:45 +0000

After 75 years, ‘Death of a Salesman’ still packs a gut punch Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 02/20/2024 - 11:22

Chris Quirk

CU Boulder theatre professor Bud Coleman reflects on Arthur Miller’s Pulitzer-winning play and why it’s a story that still has meaning

“A small man can be just as exhausted as a great man.”

It’s a simple yet resonant thought, first expressed 75 years ago this month when Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman” debuted at the Morosco Theatre on Broadway. Since that time, the play has occupied an iconic place in the American consciousness.

For Bud Coleman, a University of Colorado Boulder professor of theatre and Roe Green Endowed Chair in Theatre, one of the reasons for its resilience is Miller’s subtle complexity.

Bud Coleman, a CU Boulder professor of theatre, notes that a reason "Death of a Salesman" remains relevant 75 years after its first performance is characters that seem immediately recognizable to audiences.

“Every time I revisit the play, I'm just amazed at how many different layers are in it. It continues to play the boards because it is very rich,” he says. “You get a hundred people and, quite often, they'll have a hundred different takes on what they think either the message of the play is, or what part of the play grabbed them the most.”

“Death of a Salesman,” which tells the story of Willy Loman, a traveling salesman from Brooklyn coming to grips with his failure after years of hopeful—some would say delusional—thinking, won virtually every accolade a play can win, including five Tony Awards and a Pulitzer Prize for Miller.

Mike Nichols, who directed a revival of the play starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, saw it as a young man during its first run, and likened its effect to an explosion.

"When ‘Salesman’ first opened in 1949, there were fathers for who the doctor had to be called because they couldn't stop crying,” he told USA Today in 2012. “The show's effect was people seemed to see themselves.”

For Coleman, the play may or may not be the quintessential tale of the end of the American dream, but it can be devastating. “We see the crushing of a human being in real time on the stage in front of us.”

Translating theater to film

On that front, the first film version of “Death of a Salesman” in 1951 was the occasion of a brief but revealing dispute. Prior to releasing the film, Columbia Pictures created a 10-minute short meant to run newsreel-style before the full feature in theaters, as a preemptive salve for the rawness of Miller’s portrayal of Willy Loman.

“Career of a Salesman” was a stiff and laughable bit of propaganda, which replayed and critiqued segments of the feature film, deriding Willy’s talents as a salesman, while reassuring the audience of the importance of the profession and the guarantee that hard work leads to success. “Nothing, nothing happens in this great country of ours until something is sold,” a lecturer gravely intones.

The short film enraged Miller. "Why the hell did you make the picture if you're so ashamed of it?” he reportedly asked Columbia studio executives. “Why should anybody not get up and walk out of the theatre if ‘Death of a Salesman’ is so outmoded and pointless?" Columbia relented and pulled the short from theaters.

What has made the play so resilient over the decades, says Coleman, is the depth that Miller imbued into characters that will be immediately recognizable to the audience—including Willy’s sons, Biff and Hap, and his wife, Linda. “The young high school senior who's got dreams and aspirations, and the parent who also has those dreams and aspirations. That’s pretty much the American story right there,” he says.

Wendell Pierce and Sharon D. Clarke played Willy and Linda Loman in "Death of a Salesman" at London's Young Vic theater in 2019. (Photo: Brinkhoff Mogenburg)

‘Despite all his flaws’

The fifth and most recent Broadway revival of “Death of a Salesman” was a highly regarded run starring Wendell Pierce as Willy and Sharon D. Clarke as Linda. It was the first run of the play on Broadway with Black actors portraying the Loman family, which created a new dimension for the drama.

In an interview, Pierce noted that in New York City during the 1940s, “great danger, violence, oppressive attitudes [and] subtle humiliations were part of daily life for an African American family.”

“It could be just a depressing story of somebody with a pipe dream who's completely unrealistic, but Willy loves his family so much,” says Coleman. The strained but evident familial bonds run against the riptide of Willy’s demise.

“Linda loves him, and the boys in their own way love him, and the next-door neighbor who drives Willy crazy also cares for him.” In addition to listening to Willy’s woes, the neighbor loans him money.

“Despite all his flaws,” Coleman says, “the actor playing Willy has to show us his charm and heart. In the end, four different people, with very different relationships with him, are there for him.”

Top image: Many notable actors have played the role of Willy Loman on Broadway, including (left to right) Brian Dennehy, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Wendell Pierce and Dustin Hoffman

Did you enjoy this article? Subcribe to our newsletter. Passionate about theatre and dance? Show your support.

CU Boulder theatre professor Bud Coleman reflects on Arthur Miller’s Pulitzer-winning play and why it’s a story that still has meaning.

Off

Traditional

White

And the Motown beat goes on

Anonymous — Mon, 12 Feb 2024 23:17:23 +0000

And the Motown beat goes on Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 02/12/2024 - 16:17

Bradley Worrell

Upon the 65^th anniversary of the record label, CU Boulder prof says that from Taylor Swift to K-pop, ‘It’s all Motown; they are not creating anything new’

Shawn O’Neal, assistant teaching professor in the Department of Ethnic Studies, can’t remember a time growing up in the 1970s and 1980s when Motown music wasn’t playing in his Chicago home.

“My mother was very deep into the traditions of Motown music—and not just the music, but what it represented aesthetically as well, when talking about (Motown founder) Berry Gordy’s vision of Black respectability,” he says. “Diana Ross and the Supremes, Marvin Gaye, Martha Reeves and the Vandellas—those records were always being played in our house or coming out of the radio. So, that was always there.”

It’s hard to quantify the effect Motown—and later musical developments inspired by Motown such as disco and house music—have had on his life, says O’Neal, who teaches classes on hip hop and ethnomusicology (the intersection of music and ethnicity), as well as classes on Africana and African American studies. He is an executive committee member for the CU Boulder Center for African and African American Studies.

Shawn O'Neal, a CU Boulder assistant teaching professor in the Department of Ethnic Studies and ethnomusicologist, grew up with Motown music always playing.

“Motown did for me what a lot of other music did for me at the time, which was just opening up that intellectual curiosity in me, if you will,” he says. “Motown had this very unique sound to it than no one else was doing, just that tambourine coinciding with the backbeat and the four-on-the floor sound. Four on the floor represents a 4/4 time signature in music theory.

“And then when I was in middle school and high school, I was reading about Motown, about Detroit and about Black history. All of that led to my dissertation work on Audio Intersectionality, an interdisciplinary social science theory communicated through sound, music and performance,” says O’Neal, who is a renowned DJ and audio producer.

Motown’s impact upon on American culture is hard to understate. Started by Berry Gordy in January 1959 with $800 he borrowed from family members, Motown Records became a powerhouse in music production as well as a cultural touchstone.

The record label would go on to produce a who’s who of influential African American musicians—including Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, the Temptations, and Diana Ross and the Supremes—who would dominate the Billboard charts in the late 1960s. At one time, it was also the biggest Black-owned business in America prior to Gordy selling the record label for $61 million to MCA in 1988.

With Motown recently celebrating its 65th anniversary, Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine asked O’Neal for his thoughts on how Motown produced so much great music, how some of its artists managed to create socially conscious but still grooving music, what constitutes the “Motown Sound” and Motown’s legacy on modern music across genres. His responses have been lightly edited for style and condensed for space considerations.

Question: Motown was based in Detroit, which was not the musical center universe, yet it produced hit after hit in the 1960s and 1970s. To what do you attribute the record label’s success?

O’Neal: Music is always just timing and circumstance, and a little bit of luck. Like, really hitting that pulse at the right moment, and they (Motown) were able to do that. I think Berry Gordy was obviously brilliant with developing this whole package.

The package had a look. For the women (performers) it’s the hairstyles, the makeup, the dresses, the heels, the movements during those songs. All of that was very rehearsed and very packaged in a way that America hadn’t seen before.

The Temptations perform in 1968. (Photo: Motown Records)

Then you have a very dialed-in production team. You got the Funk Brothers. You’ve got Holland-Dozier-Holland turning out those hits. Everything was in-house and so controlled that once you had one hit song you could (repeat) something again that hit that pulse of America.

That crossover appeal was something that hadn’t really happened previously—not on that magnitude. Then you can just keep churning out those songs in that formula.

You got the production team in place. You got the players, you got the bands, the musicians. You’ve got the look. It becomes a movement. To have a prominent movement, any type of social movement, you’ve got the soundtrack, you’ve got the aesthetics, the visual representation and the messaging. It’s just such a complete package. We hadn’t seen that before in music.

Honestly, I feel like Detroit was just where a lot of those people (musicians) were. Sometimes I wonder: Could that (Motown) have happened almost anywhere in this country where you had Black people that were talented and who needed someone who was able to manage things in a particular way bring it all together? Of course, you needed a Berry Gordy, which I don’t know how many of those there are laying around. I mean, the brother knew what he was doing.

He knew what Black people wanted, but he also knew what white people wanted from Black people, which brings up a whole other conversation, because that stuff gets very tricky. There’s definitely a critical analysis on all of that.

Question: Was part of the success of Motown also due to the fact that the people running major record labels at the time were not thinking about producing music that had mass appeal?

O’Neal: Motown absolutely ended up being the model for music that had crossover appeal—for creating music that everyone is going to enjoy regardless of race and ethnicity. That was the original model.

Mary Wilson (left), Diana Ross and Florence Ballard perform as The Supremes. (Photo: Universal/Motown)

And, not to take anything away from Berry Gordy, but part of his success is because a lot of the major record labels at the time in the 1950s and ’60s were not thinking about producing music that appealed to the whole of the country—to Blacks and whites.

This country is built on segregation. So, you have to ask yourself: Why would the white owners of European descent that own these record labels and these radio stations want to appeal to Black people? They weren’t thinking that far ahead.

I think some white Americans were perfectly happy with the (idea of), 'Y’all stay over there and we’re going to stay here. You’ll have your bathroom and your water fountain and your music and we’ve got ours.’

But wait a minute, all of your music—I mean music of white European descent—is founded upon the traditions of African diasporic Black music coming out of slave plantations, coming of spirituals and gospel music, and even more predominantly from the tradition of blues music and jazz.

Question: At some point, some Motown artists wanted to infuse their music with social messages commenting on issues of the day, like Edwin Star’s “War” or “Ball of Confusion” by The Temptations. What was happening at the time to inspire that?

O’Neal: I think music shifts, just like in production and recording techniques, it shifts with people’s desire and ability to experiment. That’s how you get a Motown in the first place.

But then Motown is going through these metamorphoses as society goes through changes as well. In the mid-1960s going into the ’70s, you have all of these social issues the country has been going through. You have the 1967 Detroit Riots. …

The Supremes (in front on stairs), Berry Gordy (center, in overcoat), the songwriting team of Holland-Dozier-Holland (right) and others outside the Hitsville Studio in 1965. (Photo: Library of Congress)

After the riots, a lot of those artists had a little wakeup call, if you will. Some of those artists, like Marvin Gaye, were saying, ‘We need to be singing about something else besides doo-wop.’ A lot of those artists began to realize they had a responsibility beyond making music for crossover appeal. I think some of them started thinking about: Is it more important to have hits, or is it more important to communicate something that needs to be communicated, regardless of how people receive it, because everybody’s emotions are their own.

Question: A lot of people talk about the “Motown Sound.” How would you describe it?

O’Neal: There is something about the backbeat, about the four on the floor beats—just a four/four, boom, boom, boom, boom that ends up transpiring in a song, because to this day a four-four (beat) is something that everybody can dance to, regardless of whether it’s at 90 BPMs or 140 BPMs. And there is the tambourine sound, which wasn’t on every song, but it was there.

The other thing is there was a simplicity of the sound with the bass and with the arrangements. There was a simplicity of the arrangements, but the melodies were very, very intricate. If you have this simple beat, it gets everybody feeling good and grooving.

What that does, it allows the melody and the harmonics—particularly the vocal melodies—to be very extravagant and to be very experimental.

Question: Motown had a golden period in the 1960s and 1970s and then went into a decline in the 1980s. What do you think were some of the factors that contributed to its decline?

O’Neal: Motown is closely associated with Detroit. And things really shifted in Detroit after the Detroit Riots. How could they not? Things just weren’t the same after that. …

The Temptations (in yellow), Smokey Robinson and the Miracles (in red), Stevie Wonder (in gray), Martha and the Vandellas (in pink), the Supremes (in black) and others at the 1965 London, England, launch of the Tamla-Motown label. (Photo: Paul Nixon Collection)

With Gordy’s decision to relocate Motown to Los Angeles, it lost something. It lost that hometown feel. … While I can understand why he did it, with LA becoming the center of entertainment, I think Motown lost something.

Later on, Motown had competition, because the competition could base itself off of what Motown did. Also, the music was changing, moving into disco. Things changed.

Question: Is it possible to quantify Motown’s impact on modern music?

O’Neal: I think the impact is never really going to end. If people are willing to look at the music they are making, they have to pay homage to Motown.

Who is huge now? Taylor Swift? All of these K-pop bands that are just blowing up in Korea? It’s all Motown. They are not creating anything new. They’re adding their piece of the conversation into music history, but that’s Motown music. So, because it keeps being recycled and perpetuated, the quantification of Motown becomes almost impossible to (state), because it’s still going; it doesn’t stop.

Motown is intertwined in everything that goes on in this country, musically. Popular/commercial music is based upon that Motown-pop formula that was created there.

Did you enjoy this article? Subcribe to our newsletter. Passionate about ethnic studies? Show your support.

Upon the 65th anniversary of the record label, CU Boulder prof says that from Taylor Swift to K-pop, ‘It’s all Motown; they are not creating anything new.’

Off

Traditional

White

They wanted to hold your hand (and fans’ ecstatic screams still echo)

Anonymous — Mon, 05 Feb 2024 07:00:00 +0000

They wanted to hold your hand (and fans’ ecstatic screams still echo) Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 02/05/2024 - 00:00

Rachel Sauer

Sixty years after The Beatles’ first appearance on ‘The Ed Sullivan Show,’ CU Boulder historian Martin Babicz reflects on their impact on U.S. culture and politics

There are certain indelible moments in life, certain shared experiences, that only need a prompt of “Where were you when…?” to bring forth a torrent of memory.

So, find the nearest Baby Boomer and ask them where they were at 8 p.m. EST on Feb. 9, 1964—60 years ago this week. That Sunday night, about 45% of U.S. households turned their TVs on to CBS for “The Ed Sullivan Show.”

An audience of 73 million people heard Sullivan open with, “Now, yesterday and today our theater’s been jammed with newspapermen and hundreds of photographers from all over the nation, and these veterans agreed with me that this city never has witnessed the excitement stirred by these youngsters from Liverpool...”

And then there they were—the Fab Four, the Lads from Liverpool, The Beatles performing “All My Loving.” In memory, the ecstatic screams still echo.

CU Boulder historian Martin Babicz researches The Beatles' impact on U.S. culture and politics in 1964.

Just 77 days before that evening, President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Still staggering from that, the United States also was seeing increasing involvement in Vietnam, growing a civil rights movement and facing what would become an extremely contentious presidential election.

“There was a lot going on in 1964 in the United States,” says Martin Babicz, a University of Colorado Boulder teaching associate professor of history who researches The Beatles’ effect on U.S. culture and politics in 1964. “Their tour in 1964 fits right into the issues of the time.”

Booked on Ed Sullivan

In the month before The Beatles’ first appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show,” their first two albums—initially released in England in 1963—had been renamed and released in the United States. “I Want to Hold Your Hand” was No. 1 on the Billboard chart and a huge marketing push by Capitol Records meant that U.S. music fans were very aware of The Beatles. Compare it to a spark sizzling down a long fuse toward a pile of dynamite.

The Beatles were coming to the United States at a time when the ‘60s—not the actual decade, but the ‘60s as a culture-shifting era—had just begun, Babicz says.

“This is something I talk about with my historian friends: When did the ‘60s begin and when did the ‘60s end?” he explains. “I think the best date to assign to the ‘60s beginning was the date Kennedy was assassinated. In many ways, Kennedy and the Kennedy administration were a continuation of the Eisenhower and Truman days, with this veneer of prosperity and conformity.

“When he was assassinated and Johnson became president, it was almost like a dam broke and you see this turmoil that had been developing, this changing and shifting in the culture and in the country.”

Interestingly, Babicz notes, on the day Kennedy was assassinated—evening in England—The Beatles were playing a show at the Globe Cinema in a town called Stockton-on-Tees. Shortly before they went onstage, there was a rumor going around the theater about what had happened in Dallas, but no confirmation because there was no radio or television in the theater.

So, The Beatles went onstage and performed, and after the show the rumor about Kennedy being assassinated was confirmed, Babicz says. John Lennon questioned whether they should play the second show, “but in show-business fashion, the show went on,” he says.

“Like a lot of British musicians, The Beatles were very influenced by American culture,” Babicz explains. “Rock 'n' roll was an American invention, and The Beatles were being very much influenced by this. Rock 'n' roll in 1950s was the musical genre of rebelling, of teenagers rebelling against established society and against this American idea of affluence and stability and middle-of-the-road-ism.

“Many young people were not accepting the status quo and rebelling against it in a number of ways—how they dressed, how they spoke, the music they listened to. Rock 'n' roll was born from the music of African American artists, and before the Civil Rights Movement, playing rock 'n' roll was a rebellion against established society.”

All their loving

However, popular myths about how much parents loathed The Beatles and their “long” hair are exaggerated, Babicz says.

“It makes me laugh when I look at pictures of performers in the early 1960s wearing suits and ties,” Babicz says. “When my wife saw The Beatles at Red Rocks, it was her mom who took her. Her mom wasn’t necessarily a fan, but she wasn’t anti-Beatles, either.

“They weren’t actually seen as being totally divisive. Their music was of such a quality that it was being really accepted in the mainstream when they first came to the U.S. in 1964.”

In fact, though Ed Sullivan’s theater could hold only 700, he and his staff reportedly received 50,000 requests for seats ahead of The Beatles’ first appearance on his show. And the fact that 73 million people tuned in to see them perform bespeaks just how huge the moment was, Babicz says.

“There weren’t a lot of options then, just ABC, NBC and CBS,” Babicz says. “But still, I don’t know that you could get 73 million people to watch the same thing today. There’s a rumor—which is probably false, but it was written in Time magazine— that during the show, not a single hubcap was stolen in New York City.”

The Beatles opened with “All My Loving” then played “Till There Was You” and closed the first set with “She Loves You.” The screams from teenage audience members were deafening. They closed the hour-long show with “I Saw Her Standing There” and “I Want to Hold Your Hand.” The Beatles appeared on the show the next two weeks as well, but that Feb. 9 appearance was the breakthrough moment, Babicz says.

[video:https://youtu.be/jenWdylTtzs?si=rJ79IrBjWkfctmdU]

Reflecting broader movements

The Beatles subsequently toured the United States in the summer and fall of 1964—they played Red Rocks Amphitheater on Aug. 26 of that year—and through the tour there were important touch points that mirrored broader movements in U.S. culture and politics, Babicz says.

For example, The Beatles were scheduled to play the Gator Bowl in Jacksonville, Florida, but when they learned that the venue was still segregated by race, even though the Civil Rights Act had recently been signed into law, they refused to play there.

“So, the city backed down and desegregated the venue,” Babicz says. “They wanted The Beatles to come more than they wanted to stay segregated.”

And though The Beatles were ostensibly apolitical early in their career, Babicz learned through his research that following the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave President Lyndon Johnson the authority to use military force in southeast Asia without a formal declaration of war by Congress, John Lennon expressed his strong opposition to a young WFUN reporter named Larry Kane.

Paul McCartney (right) shows Ed Sullivan his guitar on Feb. 9, 1964. (Photo: Associated Press)

“Certainly (The Beatles’) manager, Brian Epstein, wouldn’t have wanted them taking a position, especially not to a reporter, because that could alienate a large number of fans,” Babicz says. “It wasn’t until about 1966 that people began publicly expressing opposition to the Vietnam War, but it’s come out that John Lennon publicly was against it even earlier.”

Though the band’s later career musically, thematically and visually reflected the changes and upheaval in culture and politics, those early, suit-and-tie-wearing days were just as revolutionary, though not as obviously so, Babicz says.

A Beatles T-shirt in 2024

And the irony is, despite many years of researching the band and even more years of being a fan, Babicz was just slightly too young to experience the full impact of Beatlemania. He was 5 in 1964, and the first time he actually heard The Beatles was during Easter of that year, when his precocious, 3-year-old cousin sang “I Want to Hold Your Hand” to the delight of his family.

In the summer of 1964, while The Beatles conquered America on tour, he went to his grandmother’s farm in upstate New York and with his cousins caught beetles in jars, which they named John, Paul, George and Ringo.

It wasn’t until around 1971, when a cousin four years his senior gave him six Beatles singles on vinyl, including “I Want to Hold Your Hand” and “All You Need Is Love,” that his interest was seriously piqued. In 1973, when the red and blue Beatles greatest hits albums were released, Babicz bought both and was officially a dedicated, fervent fan.

“Those greatest hits albums came with inserts listing all the Beatles records, and I remember vowing to buy all of them,” he remembers. “So, I did. And I’ve owned all the Beatles’ albums in every available format: vinyl, eight-track, cassette, CD and digital.”

He even met his wife at a Beatles convention at the Meadowlands in New Jersey. So, approaching the music he loves as a historian and scholar was a natural next step.

“There are so many different ways to approach their impact and influence,” Babicz says. “They shaped culture and in a way defined the era. Even now, 60 years later, I have a few students every semester who show up to class wearing a Beatles T-shirt.”

Top image: The Beatles performing on "The Ed Sullivan Show" Feb. 9, 1964. (Photo: Getty Images)

Did you enjoy this article? Subcribe to our newsletter. Passionate about history? Show your support.

Sixty years after The Beatles’ first appearance on ‘The Ed Sullivan Show,’ CU Boulder historian Martin Babicz reflects on their impact on U.S. culture and politics.

Off

Traditional

White

Say hello to my little friend, the gangster movie

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Jan 2024 20:16:36 +0000

Say hello to my little friend, the gangster movie Anonymous (not verified) Fri, 01/26/2024 - 13:16

Bradley Worrell

In honor of what would have been Al Capone’s 125th birthday, CU Boulder cinema researcher Tiel Lundy explains the enduring popularity of gangsters in film and the American imagination

What is the most quintessentially American genre of film?

Some might argue for the Western, but there also is a case to be made for the gangster film, says Tiel Lundy, associate teaching professor with the University of Colorado Boulder Department of Cinema Studies and Moving Image Arts. Lundy should know—she’s been teaching a class on the portrayal of gangsters in film for almost 10 years as part of the Libby Hall Residential Academic Program (RAP), recently rebranded as Creative Minds RAP at Libby.

Movies about gangsters date back to the early days of modern motion pictures, and hundreds of them have been made over the years. In fact, following the success of the first recognized gangster film, Little Caesar, in 1931, starring Edward G. Robinson as a small-town mobster rising through the ranks of organized crime, Hollywood made more than 50 gangster movies the following year.

Tiel Lundy, a CU Boulder associate teaching professor in the Department of Cinema Studies and Moving Image Arts, teaches a course on the portrayal of gangsters in film.

With this month marking the 125th anniversary of the birth of America’s most famous gangster, Al Capone, Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine asked Lundy about the continued popularity of the genre, how it has evolved over the years and what makes for a good gangster movie. Her responses have been lightly edited for style and condensed for space considerations.

Question: Given how many gangster films have been made, it seems fair to say the genre is popular with Hollywood producers.

Lundy: It is. And I think that, much like the genre of the Western, there’s always a question about gangster movies amongst film scholars: Does it continue to be viable, or has it pretty much reached its terminus? But just when people want to pronounce it dead, it finds its next incarnation.

I have some thoughts as to why it remains a really enduring genre. From its beginnings, the gangster film is an American cinematic invention. Other national cinemas have adopted it and riffed on it, but it is an American genre, and the genre itself really was contemporaneous to the history of gangsters in America, like Al Capone. I think that’s part of what explains its continuing appeal—that it’s rooted in actual history. I also think the gangster, as this mythic figure, is kind of the embodiment of this American identity.

Question: It seems like early gangster films focused on Italian-American or maybe Irish-America mobsters, but later films have broadened to represent greater American diversity.

Lundy: You’re definitely touching on something that is core to the genre. The genre is about American identity. And you can’t extricate race and ethnicity from American identity just because of the sort of unique nature and way this country has come together and continues to evolve. So, early films from the 1930s reflected the immigration patterns of the day. If you look at the late 19th and early 20th century, many of the immigrants were coming from southern Europe, and from Italy in particular.

As our questions about American identity become refined and maybe more focused on second- and third-generation Americans, I think they start to become less concerned with immigration status and ethnicity and really more at the intersection of race and class. I’m thinking now about Boyz n the Hood, for example. That is not the classic rise-and-fall story. That is a story that condemns racism and the failures of democracy and capitalism.

If you look at other films that are slightly more recent, for instance, The Departed, they do look at ethnicity, but I think their focus is really more on capitalism.

Question: Do you have any thoughts on Hollywood’s treatment of perhaps America’s most famous gangster, Al Capone?

Lundy: The obvious two films that we would look to would be the original Scarface, by Howard Hawks, and then the remake from 1983 from director Brian De Palma. And they’re remarkably similar in the way that they depict Capone, or in this case, ‘Tony.’ Tony Camonte is the name of the character in the original movie and Tony Montana is the remake with actor Al Pacino's character.

What I think they share between the two depictions, as well as the actual Al Capone, is that this man who is very aware of his presentation publicly and who really has worked to craft a kind of persona and public image of himself. And that’s my understanding as to part of why Al Capone has lived on in our memory, because he was a very good kind of social promoter—almost like an influencer of his day. The gangster’s identity has everything to do with how the public sees him, so he goes to great lengths to create this kind of mythic, larger-than-life impression in the press and popular culture.

John Singleton's 1991 film Boyz n the Hood condemned racism and the failures of democracy and capitalism. (Photo: Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.)

Question: Movie-wise, it seems like the American gangster has gone through several incarnations over the years.

Lundy: You’re right, there are definitely different iterations. And those iterations are a function of the release date of the film as well as when it’s set. They also are very much impacted by censorship.

If you look at the bulk of what we call the classic cycle of gangster films—those films that come out from the mid-1930s to the late 1940s and early ’50s—the content of those and the depiction of the gangsters was strongly enforced by the Hollywood Production Code.

The writers and directors were always somewhat hamstrung by the demands of the Hayes Office and the Production Code. If you were to try and really abide by the letter of the law, you couldn’t have a gangster that was flouting the law or remained sympathetic … because then you are creating a figure who doesn’t exemplify proper values. But, of course, that also makes for a really boring gangster.

So, the directors were always trying to find a way to kind of thread that needle to create a gangster who was charismatic, and was interesting, and who satisfied audiences’ craving for criminality and ruthlessness—but at the same time, that they could get it past the censors and release their films.

So, up until Bonnie and Clyde from 1967, movies were very much informed by the restrictions of the Production Code. By the time you get to Bonnie and Clyde, you have a different set of parameters, and a little bit more latitude as far as how to depict these gangsters.

Question: Prior to the Production Code, it seems like Hollywood romanticized gangsters a bit, but after the code Hollywood turns its attention to romanticizing law enforcement, correct?

Lundy: During the Great Depression, there was a feeling of disenfranchisement and dissatisfaction with American institutions, and that’s really embedded in gangster films at the time. They (gangsters) are there to challenge those institutions like banks and other institutions that were seen as utter failures that had let people down.

So, in the 1930s the gangster was most certainly romanticized. Those gangsters had qualities that made them more sympathetic to audiences and they had certain vulnerabilities.

Edward G. Robinson starred in Little Caesar, considered the first gangster film. (Photo: Museum of Modern Art Film Stills Archive)

Once we get into the official Production Code era, after 1934 until about the end of the 1940s, that 15-year or so period is when the Production Code was enforced most vigorously, and as a consequence the gangsters became less romanticized because the code was leaning hard on the studios to make gangsters less sympathetic and make law enforcement more sympathetic.

Question: With the enforcement of the Hollywood Production Code, it seems like movie gangsters were predestined to end up dead or in prison by the end of the movie.

Lundy: Exactly. You could have a gangster committing crimes, but ultimately, he had to be punished for them. So, that’s why you have movies like Little Caesar and Scarface and Public Enemy, where the gangster always goes out in a hail of bullets. He’s effectively ‘punished’ by dying. But it’s a very dramatic, spectacular death that satisfied audiences craving for that kind of action and violence and drama.

Question: Besides being focused on gangsters, are there some general unifying themes in this genre of film?

Lundy: What those movies—especially The Godfather and Scarface—have in common is this ongoing central theme about social mobility in America and the kind of tension between the gangster wanting to move up the social ladder and acquire a certain kind of class respectability—but at the same time never wanting to really fulfill that social contract. He wants to get to the top, but he wants to find the shortcut way to get there.

I think that’s common to some extent across American gangster films. They express that tension between wanting to be accepted in the highest levels, maybe even have political capital, but be able to commit crimes with impunity.

I’ve been thinking more about this recently, and I think that explains why this genre continues to remain vital: It’s pretty hard-baked into the American consciousness, that tension between being a renegade and also wanting to do your part so that we can have a functioning society.

Question: With so many gangster films to choose from, how do you narrow down the list of ones you will focus on in class to a manageable level?

Marlon Brando (right) starred as Don Vito Corleone, the titular godfather, in The Godfather. (Photo: Paramount)

Lundy: Basically, that’s what goes into shaping the syllabus. What can we do in about 14 weeks? If this is the only time that a student is going to watch gangster films, what are the ones they absolutely must see? What are the films that express those key turning points in the genre that express the central conflicts and themes?

I always know where the starting point is going to be. It's going to be the first film, Little Caesar. I don’t always know what the last, most recent film is, because I always move chronologically. But there are always going to be some films that that will never go away, like The Godfather. I would be drawn and quartered by my colleagues if I taught a gangster class and left out The Godfather.

Question: Is there anything specific that you think makes for a good gangster film?

Lundy: Beyond the technical effects, I think what the most endearing films have in common is the scope of the story. These are master narratives with sweeping stories that cover decades in a family’s story. I think that, in part, that’s why The Godfather trilogy is such a favorite.

Movies like The Godfather and Goodfellas offer really broad, sweeping narratives. I think why they work so well and are so appealing is that, with that kind of scope, they can really engage in questions about America and American identity that is always going to be core to the gangster genre. It’s always going to be interrogating Americanism and the promises of America.

Maybe my answer is not so much what makes for a ‘good’ gangster film, but what makes for the most enduring and popular gangster films for American audiences.

Top image: scene from Howard Hawks' 1932 film Scarface, starring Paul Muni (center) as Tony Camonte. (Photo: Bettman Archive)

Did you enjoy this article? Subcribe to our newsletter. Passionate about cinema studies and moving image arts? Show your support.

In honor of what would have been Al Capone’s 125th birthday, CU Boulder cinema researcher Tiel Lundy explains the enduring popularity of gangsters in film and the American imagination.

Off

Traditional

White

The Exorcist maintains its terrifying staying power

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Dec 2023 19:46:38 +0000

The Exorcist maintains its terrifying staying power Anonymous (not verified) Thu, 12/21/2023 - 12:46

Bradley Worrell

The film, which turns 50 this December, continues to leave a mark on Christians and the larger American public as both a horror film and a story about the battle between good and evil

When attendees gathered last month for the annual conference of the American Academy of Religion—the largest professional association devoted to religious studies in North America—the event featured two different panel discussions related to the movie The Exorcist, which marks its 50-year anniversary this December.

That says something about both the movie’s popular appeal as well as the tremendous influence it has had on religious believers, says Deborah Whitehead, associate professor and chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder, whose focus includes religion and its intersection with American culture.

The Exorcist made $441 million worldwide following its Dec. 26, 1973, release and went on to receive 10 Academy Award nominations, a first for a horror movie. The movie’s influence was felt far beyond the box office, however.

Deborah Whitehead, associate professor and chair of the Department of Religious Studies at CU Boulder, studies religion and its intersection with American culture.

“The film had a big cultural impact,” Whitehead says. “In particular, it was actually very significant in influencing evangelicals’ conceptions of evil and possession.”

Recently, Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine spoke with Whitehead about what made the movie a blockbuster success upon its release, its themes of good versus evil and science versus faith and why the idea of demonic possession is much scarier than zombies or killer robots. Her answers were lightly edited for style and condensed.

Question: When The Exorcist was released in late 1973, it was a huge commercial success. Why do you think that is?

Whitehead: There are so many different angles to take on that. On the one hand, even though the director, William Friedkin, said he wasn’t making a horror movie, audiences and film scholars have classified it as a horror movie. I think that was part of its appeal. …

Another element is that Friedkin was a very famous director. He’s up in that pantheon with Francis Ford Coppola and others who are making films around this time that capture the uncertainty of the time period, of 1973. With Watergate and the Vietnam War, we’re losing faith in government and our government’s ability to make good decisions internationally and domestically. … I think there are all these ways in which the film captures the Zeitgeist of that time period.

Question: Some have pointed to the film’s underlying battle between good and evil. Do you think that played a factor as well in its appeal?

Whitehead: The religious element is the big appeal, absolutely. The film deals with these universal human questions about good versus evil and doubt versus faith.

It’s sort of science versus religion, too. The mom (in the movie) initially seeks help for her daughter by turning to science, and science fails her. They do all these really invasive, painful procedures … that really don’t help. So, she finally turns to religion out of desperation.

Of course, there’s the Catholic piece. The Catholic Church officially give the film a cautionary rating and a critical review. Protestant groups and leaders also condemned the film. But the studio and distributors viewed all of the negative publicity as a potential marketing strategy, in a kind of 'see the movie your church doesn’t want you to see' vein.

But in internal correspondence between the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is the national organization governing the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S., the reaction was more nuanced. Some even felt that the film could spur people to have discussions about belief and about good and evil. And faith wins in the end, so I think there was some positive sense that maybe this will spur people to rediscover what’s important about religion in a secular age.

The Exorcist film was based on the bestselling 1971 novel by William Blatty, who also wrote the film's screenplay and was its producer.

Question: Any thoughts as to whether people of faith can find value in a film like The Exorcist?

Whitehead: I would think it’s mixed. Even the author of the book, William Blatty, was really upset at the final cut of the film, because Blatty was Roman Catholic, and he was writing the book about a priest who has a crisis of faith and then overcomes that crisis of faith at the end to sacrifice himself to save this young girl. So, for him, it was really a story about the affirmation of religious belief in an uncertain world.

But the way that the director cut the film actually leaves it with a lot more ambiguity. Friedkin was a non-religious Jewish director, and he famously told Blatty, 'I'm not doing a commercial for the Catholic Church.'

That’s not what the film was about for him. He was much more interested in these deeper questions of doubt and uncertainty.

Of course, there were segments of the Christian public in the United States who were extremely critical of the film—who felt that it wasn’t portraying Catholicism or Christianity correctly. And there was a subset of the evangelical population who felt the film was dangerous because of the demonic elements.

They would never watch it, or have their kids watch it, because demons are real, and you really can get possessed by playing with a Ouija board or any number of other seemingly innocuous things that kids and adults do. It confirms for them that the world is a very dangerous place—that it’s riddled with evil, and so you want to stay away from those things. You want to stay away from films, books, games or other activities that would involve any contact with evil.

Question An Exorcist film released in October, Exorcist: Believer, featured a Catholic priest, a Baptist minister and a non-traditional religious person attempting to exorcise two demon-possessed children. So, there is a multi-cultural element in this new version?

Whitehead: I haven’t seen the new film, I should say. But I understand from reading reviews that the new film makes exorcism a much more ecumenical affair. Rather than just being the province of the Roman Catholic Church, now we’ve got Protestant clergy involved, and I think an African American traditional religious healer as well.

That’s a really interesting shift. It is suggesting that exorcism and demon possession are sort of universal in all religions. That is a very different message than the first film, where exorcism is something that exclusively belongs to the province of the Roman Catholic Church.

I think that does reflect that maybe people are more inclined today to see all religions as more fundamentally similar to each other than they were in 1973.

Question: The new movie reportedly did fairly well at the box office. One might think this topic would be of less interest today, given that younger audiences are less religious than their predecessors?

Whitehead: The way I would phrase it is not a decline of belief, but a decline of religious affiliation over time in the U.S.

A version of the film's now-iconic movie poster, originally created by graphic designer Bill Gold. (Photo: Warner Bros.)

Demographic data suggest that at least a third of all Americans are unaffiliated with a particular religious tradition, where ‘unaffiliation’ is broad enough to encompass both belief and belonging. It means that they might believe, but they don’t go to services anymore. Or it means that they may go to services, but they don’t consider themselves to belong to any one particular tradition. That number also includes atheist and agnostics and those who explicitly deny or equivocate on the question of belief. So, that’s a really big category that has increased a lot in the last 50 years.

But despite that data, we have other data which suggests that Americans are still really fascinated with the paranormal. They’re still fascinated with the idea of mystical experiences. Many Americans, including younger generations, say that they experience a sense of awe or wonder in relation to something, whether that’s nature or the cosmos or prayer.

So, what that suggests is that the capacity for belief in something that’s larger than the self or some set of forces that operate in a supernatural way outside of the realm of modern science is still there. It’s just that people aren’t looking for the answers or the framework to interpret or explain or understand those experiences in organized religion as much today as they were in the past.

Question: If you were to compare the ‘scare factor’ of demonic possession versus other movie horror tropes, like zombies or killer robots, how would they rank?

Whitehead: That’s a good question. My answer is that possession is way more terrifying than those (other) things because it’s an internal enemy.

If you’ve got zombies, killer robots, malevolent aliens, serial killers or whatever, they are entities that are outside you. But to think about an evil force that actually enters into your body and controls your mind and controls your body—that’s truly terrifying. There’s something about the idea of totally losing control of your body and your mind and giving it over to this evil force who can really command you to do whatever horrible things it wants. …

What can you do? What’s your recourse?

Question: There are reportedly two more Exorcist films in development, so it seems Hollywood believes this theme will continue to resonate with audiences?

Whitehead: Or it indicates that Hollywood is out of new ideas? (laughs) I mean, we’re so much into sequels. Oh, my gosh, all the reboots! It just seems to be really endemic in Hollywood right now.

I don’t know if it is a kind of nostalgia for what are now perceived as simpler times—even though at the time they weren’t perceived as simple. Or if it’s a lack of new ideas, or just trying to capitalize on past financial success with the hope of making more money. So, I’m not sure what the motivations are there. …

Part of the genius of the original film was: How do you sit with the ambiguity of doubt, of not having clear answers, of not knowing what to do when you are confronted with evil and suffering in the world? And the newer film doesn’t seem to be doing that. It doesn’t seem to have the same magic. It will be interesting to see if those new ones get made and what the response to them is. Or if it’s sort of like the Star Wars movies, which by the time we got to the last three, we’re all sick of it, right? We’re like, ‘Come on, stop; you’re ruining it.’

Top image: A still image of the priest in The Exorcist (Photo: Warner Bros.)

Did you enjoy this article? Subcribe to our newsletter. Passionate about religious studies? Show your support.

The film, which turns 50 this December, continues to leave a mark on Christians and the larger American public as both a horror film and a story about the battle between good and evil.

Off

Traditional

White

Even after 180 years, A Christmas Carol is no humbug

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:50:28 +0000

Even after 180 years, A Christmas Carol is no humbug Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 12/20/2023 - 10:50

Cody DeBos

CU Boulder Victorian literature scholars discuss why Charles Dickens’ classic is still retold and probably will be retold in Christmases yet to come

This month is the 180th anniversary of Charles Dickens' classic, A Christmas Carol. For nearly two centuries, this tale of redemption and reflection has buoyed readers with its depictions of regret and the enduring tenacity of hope.

Dickens’ novella also can be read as a social commentary, reflecting his views of Victorian England through themes that remain relevant today. The narrative keenly addresses issues of wealth imbalance, labor inequity and the harsh realities the working class faced—all struggles Dickens experienced personally.

But why, among Dickens’ body of work, is A Christmas Carol the story that still gets told? Why does a reflection on social injustice in Victorian England ring true for readers in the 21st century?

Emily Harrington (left) and Elizabeth Anderman are Victorian literature scholars who cite multiple factors influencing A Christmas Carol's enduring place in culture.

Enduring social commentary

As Charles Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol, he took aim at attitudes toward poverty and those living in it.

“There was a lot of tension at the time, in the sense that some people had everything and some people had nothing,” explains Elizabeth Anderman, an associate teaching professor, English lecturer and English teacher for the College of Arts and Sciences Residential Academic Programs. “Obviously, I think that’s still true for us today, right? Scrooge, who starts as a miser and is converted, speaks to our culture of aspiring to wealth—and I think we all know there are some potential negatives with that.”

Dickens’ choice to confront the widening gap between the richest and the poorest was uncomfortable for many at the time, Anderman says. When the story was published in 1843, England’s wealth gap was expanding dramatically.

Choosing to address income inequality via a ghost story made the tale and its themes more approachable—and possibly more palatable—for a broader swath of readers, says Emily Harrington, an associate professor of English and associate chair for undergraduate studies in the Department of English. Also, ghost stories were very popular at Christmas in the 19^th century, much more than they were at Halloween.

“Ghost stories and other gothic horror genres are great for representing big unwieldy social problems because they make those problems safer for readers to encounter them,” she says.

However, Dickens ultimately balances the spookiness and social critique with nostalgia and visions of an ideal holiday—one that readers can embrace even if they’ve never experienced it.

Bob and Tiny Tim Cratchit (illustration by Frederick Barnard, noted for his work with editions of Charles Dickens' novels published between 1871 and 1879)

“I would say this story remains popular because it offers a fanciful solution to those big problems,” Harrington says. “Bob Cratchit gets a raise, his family gets a turkey. Everyone who reads or watches can feel good about a problem with a resolution.”

Eternal archetypes

The enduring appeal of A Christmas Carol isn’t exclusive to its commentary on social injustice. Dickens’ use of archetypal characters—figures like Scrooge, Tiny Tim and the Christmas spirits—emphasizes a desire for redemption narratives, and for good things to happen to people who deserve them.

“We really want our leaders and rich people to be nice people and to be able to be converted,” Anderman says. “We want to believe that being rich doesn’t make you horrible. Seeing Scrooge’s transformation from a miserly figure to being redeemed is something people want to hold onto.”

However, Dickens’ characters, though beloved, are not without criticism. Tiny Tim, Bob Cratchit’s preternaturally wise son, has in recent years been criticized as an objectifying portrayal of disability. While using disabled characters to tug at the heartstrings was a common technique in Victorian literature, and even though some readers gain significant emotional connection to the story via Tiny Tim, many view this use of the character archetype as harmful.

“People working in the area of disability studies have felt like Tiny Tim does their community a real disservice, because he is a poster child,” Harrington says. “In that sense, he is an object—not a subject. There’s a need for stories that put the experiences of disabled people at the center and don’t just make them sentimental objects for eliciting sympathy.”

Transcending the page

The fact that Dickens’ story still elicits strong opinions and that people are still discussing it bespeaks its enduring themes and characters. It is a story that holds up through countless adaptations and retellings, from animated films to stage plays to modern twists on the core story

Harrington notes that the story’s adaptability is thanks, in part, to its theatrical structure. Scrooge serves as a fill-in for the audience, while the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future transport the audience through scenes and, depending on the adaptation, acts.

“My dad has read A Christmas Carol to us each year for my entire life,” Anderman says. “So much of what Dickens wrote was meant to be read out loud. I think this is part of what has helped it convert really well into more modern media we understand better today. So many lines have a rhythm we want to speak and hear out loud.”

Both Harrington and Anderman, researchers of and experts in Victorian literature, cite a beloved adaptation: 1992’s The Muppet Christmas Carol.

A scene from The Muppet Christmas Carol (photo: Disney)

“I can say that The Muppet Christmas Carol is my favorite adaptation because of the whimsy and playfulness,” Harrington says. “It doesn’t take its subject too seriously.”

Embracing fantasy and continued relevance

Though Dickens used Christmas themes and a patina of sentimentality to tell this story, the issues he aimed to address transcended the holiday season, and the decades of holiday seasons since its publication in December 1843.

“Dickens really wanted to work and help the poor in his own life,” Anderman says. “There’s a part of me that wishes we could get back to that part of the text. There are some moments where he really wants us to take a look around and see the people in our communities we don’t often see. He wants us to embrace this aspect, but sadly, I think this gets glossed over by the Christmas side.”

Harrington adds that she hopes to see a change in the type of stories people celebrate around the holidays. “I think it’s really important to understand how the stories we tell operate culturally, and to me, this one has maybe held on too long, suggesting that charitable giving will solve big problems rather than fundamental systemic change,” she says.

Nevertheless, A Christmas Carol remains the story people read year after year, with its catchphrases “Bah! Humbug!” and “God bless us everyone.”

“Yeah, it’s a nice fantasy to enjoy,” Harrington says. “It’s a fairytale, right? It’s a ghost story. These are the stories we love to connect with and feel good about.”

Or, in the words of the author himself, “There is nothing in the world so irresistibly contagious as laughter and good humor.”

Top image: A closing scene from The Muppet Christmas Carol (photo: Disney)

Did you enjoy this article? Subcribe to our newsletter. Passionate about English? Show your support.

CU Boulder Victorian literature scholars discuss why Charles Dickens’ classic is still retold and probably will be retold in Christmases yet to come.

Off

Traditional

White

After six decades, who knew? Whovians, that's who

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Dec 2023 19:28:15 +0000

After six decades, who knew? Whovians, that's who Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 12/06/2023 - 12:28

Bradley Worrell

Doctor Who turns 60 this year and CU Boulder scientist, alumna and ‘Whovian’ super fan attributes the BBC show’s success and staying power to its relatable protagonist and strong plotlines

When the TV show Doctor Who debuted in November 1963 on the British Broadcasting Corp., critics were notably muted.

In retrospect, perhaps a show about a humanoid alien with two hearts who travels the galaxy in a ship disguised as a police phone booth, fights killer robots and uses something called a “Sonic Screwdriver” as a go-to gadget for fixing things was always going to be an acquired taste. Yet, despite a very limited special-effects budget in the show’s early years and multiple cast changes, Doctor Who has persevered to become the longest-running science fiction-themed TV show, according to Guinness World Records.

One person who is not surprised by the show’s success is Emily Nocito (PhDEnvSci’23), who has watched the TV series for nearly 20 years, has been a panelist at several Doctor Who conventions and was once interviewed by the BBC as a recognized expert on activities associated with Doctor Who gatherings.

CU Boulder graduate Emily Nocito (PhDEnvSci’23) has watched Doctor Who for nearly 20 years, has been a panelist at several Doctor Who conventions and was once interviewed by the BBC as a recognized expert on Doctor Who fandom. She is pictured wearing a fez, which was popularized by the 11th doctor on the TV show.

Nocito says she started watching Doctor Who while in middle school, growing up in New Jersey.

“It was something that I could watch with my parents; it was something that was of interest to two different generations,” she says. As her interest in the TV show grew, she found herself attending Comic Cons in New York and events specific to Doctor Who.

Recently, ColoradoArts and Sciences Magazine spoke with Nocito about what first attracted her to the show, why she believes the show has maintained its popularity through the years, how she feels about being called a “Whovian” and the effect Doctor Who has had on her decision to pursue a career in science. Her answers were lightly edited for style and condensed.

Question: What was it about the TV show that attracted you to it?

Nocito: For a show that is about aliens, it is so humanistic. One minute it can be silly and then terrifying and then emotional—and it really has everything you could want in a show. You can be laughing in one episode and just sobbing your way through the next.

That’s something that I honestly haven’t found with any other show, is that element of real humanity to it. In the character of the Doctor, you have this alien—mythical, magical almost—being who has seen all of time and space, and is thousands of years old, and yet still causes a lot of problems. He has flaws, but most times he strives to be the best version of themselves.

I also think the show attracts people who might feel a bit different, a bit alien. I think one thing Doctor Who has done a pretty good job of, compared to other shows, is in terms of representation. Whether that is queer representation, or someone with a disability, or a different health diagnosis, the key thing is that they are represented but not tokenized.

Question: Guinness World Records has stated that Doctor Who is the longest-running science fiction show. Why do you think that is?

Nocito: I think it’s really the storytelling. The running joke with the show is that one of the bad guys of the Doctor Who universe since the beginning of the series was the Daleks. And to be absolutely honest, it looks like some guy in a costume that is made for a school play, and he’s holding toilet plunger. And that’s your big, bad guy.

Over the show's 60-year (and counting) run, the character of Doctor Who has been played by many actors. (Image: BBC Studios)

Still, the story lines are so compelling that it somehow makes up for the lack of special effects—especially back in the early days of the show. It’s somehow endearing and almost campy. …

I think it’s really through the storytelling, plus the fans’ passion for the show, that have kept Doctor Who going for all of those years. It’s a community that I would argue is probably unmatched. Maybe the Trekkies (Star Trek fans) have us beat, but I would almost argue Whovians have the hottest take.

That being said, there’s always at least a few Trekkies dressed up who show up at Doctor Who conventions, usually as Red Shirts. And usually, the Red Shirts are in the background. We see them.

I just love that. I think there’s such harmony between all of the different sci-fi communities that we can all appreciate each other’s love and passion for the shows.

Question: The TV show has evolved over the years, with several different actors playing the title character. In your interactions with fans, are they accepting of the changes with the show—including new Doctors—or are there some purists who cling to the original shows, like with some Star Trek fans?

Nocito: There are some people who have problems with (changes). So, for example, when (actress) Jodi Whitaker took over the role, we had our first canonically female Doctor. In the new season that will start soon, we will have a person of color playing the Doctor.

Every group has its trolls. There are some people who don’t like change.

My thing is: If you have a problem with one Doctor, you can find a different two-hearted fictional Doctor to like. Calm down, it’s just character. …

I find that the people that I associate with embrace it. We embrace inclusivity. We embrace that what Doctor Who stands for is a space that should make everyone feel safe and seen, and is the best part of humanity, put through just a silly sci-fi lens.

Question: Fans of Doctor Who are sometimes referred to as Whovians. Do you mind if someone calls you a Whovian? Also, is it fair to say you are a super fan of the show?

Nocito: I don’t mind at all. For me, it’s an identifier. I am a Whovian; I am very proud of that.

And to me, what’s so interesting is, if people watch the show, they naturally want to talk about the show, things like, who is your favorite Doctor? What companion do you like? What companion do you hate? And it’s just open for debate, and obviously subject to personal preference.

But everyone has a favorite. Everyone has their first Doctor. Everyone has their own origin story how they got started with the show. At the end of the day, the important thing is that you’re here, and you are Whovian. And that’s the community. …

I’m innately curious. I really like complex problems. And that’s also something I’ve seen in every iteration of the Doctor, of tackling complex problems while also wanting to make tangible impact on things.”

Yes, I would categorize myself as a super fan. When I speak about Doctor Who (at conventions), I often do it in context of Doctor Who, Sherlock and the TV show Supernatural, because they all have smart plotlines. And with all three, you’ll find yourself getting invested in the characters. You have characters who are smart, but they have their faults, and they are very relatable. (The three TV shows) are kind of this holy trinity of dorkiness and geeky-ness, and I love that.

Question: Did watching Doctor Who have anything with your deciding to pursue the sciences?

Nocito: In a more abstract sense, yes. I’m innately curious. I really like complex problems. And that’s also something I’ve seen in every iteration of the Doctor, of tackling complex problems while also wanting to make tangible impact on things.

Also, in my case, I study the oceans, which I would argue is almost equally mysterious as other universes. …

I’ve made some amazing connections through Doctor Who. There was a TV show called Torchwood that was a spinoff of Doctor Who, and I was waiting in line to see the premier of it in New York City. The line was really long, and to pass the time, some of us were chatting.

One of the people I was standing next to was actually a student at the college that I wanted to attend. She was able to get me into one of her classes as a visiting high schooler. They gave me a tour of the campus and I got to meet other people she was hanging out with, including some people in the Science Fiction Club.

I would have never met her in a million years if I hadn’t stood in line for this spin-off of this British show that had been on the air since before I was born. It was such an interesting coincidence that she was attending the college that was my top choice. And I ended up going there, to Stony Brook University on Long Island.

Some of the most amazing people that I’ve met—including other scientists—I’ve only met because of this show.

Editor’s note: Recently, Nocito was named a Knauss Fellow through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In February, she will start a yearlong fellowship with NOAA in Silver Spring, Md., focused on U.S. implementation of U.N. work focused on conservation in the high seas, which was the focus of her dissertation.

Question: Do you have any advice for anyone who hasn’t watched Doctor Who and is on the fence about watching it?

Nocito: I challenge everyone to give it a try. Just give it a watch. Start pretty much anywhere—any first episode of a season. It’s not difficult to catch up in the plot lines. That being said, if you’re dedicated, you’ve got 60 years’ worth of shows to watch. So, if you really like binging shows, boy do I have one for you.

Did you enjoy this article? Subcribe to our newsletter. Passionate about arts and sciences? Show your support.

Doctor Who turns 60 this year and CU Boulder scientist, alumna and ‘Whovian’ super fan attributes the BBC show’s success and staying power to its relatable protagonist and strong plotlines.

Off

Traditional

White